I'm curious about people's views about the general design of the FMX 2D graphics API.
I'm curious about people's views about the general design of the FMX 2D graphics API. This is from the point of view of it being a modernised and cross platform re-imagining of the VCL's 2D graphics capabilities (which don't extend very far, but do what they promise to do without fuss). To be clear (or clear-ish!), I'm not asking about FMX as such, just this part.
Digging a bit into the current version (I last worked with FMX in anger in XE3), my first through was 'hmm, this is a lot of code'. However, my second thoughts were much more positive - on Windows, the 2D graphics implementation is looking like a pretty direct, yet high-ish level wrapping of Direct2D, so quite VCL-like in spirit (which was/is a pretty direct, yet high-ish level wrapping of the Windows API - the GDI in the 2D graphics case). On the the hand, maybe it suffers from the usual FMX ills for other things... so what do people 'in the trenches' think about it...?
Digging a bit into the current version (I last worked with FMX in anger in XE3), my first through was 'hmm, this is a lot of code'. However, my second thoughts were much more positive - on Windows, the 2D graphics implementation is looking like a pretty direct, yet high-ish level wrapping of Direct2D, so quite VCL-like in spirit (which was/is a pretty direct, yet high-ish level wrapping of the Windows API - the GDI in the 2D graphics case). On the the hand, maybe it suffers from the usual FMX ills for other things... so what do people 'in the trenches' think about it...?
Comments
Post a Comment