Re: [Caml-list] Pros and cons of different GL bindings ?

[Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>]

On 2011/04/28, at 1:24, Anthony Tavener wrote:

> Ethan's summary is good. I'll elaborate a bit on glcaml...
> 
> I use glcaml, but don't recommend it in general. There are two reasons I chose it: 1. It looks like OpenGL, so my familiarity with it directly translates... the only differences are lowecase GL constants and no parentheses around arguments. 2. It (kind-of) supports features like shaders.
> 
> What I mean by "kind-of" is that the bindings are broken for a lot of lesser-used features. I've been maintaining my own modifications to support features I need (same with sdlcaml)... though I recently decided I should follow OpenGL 4 (basically the same as OpenGL ES 2), which strips the interface down to a minimal set heavily reliant on shaders. This is turning into "yet another set of bindings".
> 
> I know I tried glMLite... but can't remember what problems I encountered, and I did encounter problems which led me to settle on glcaml.
> 
> Also, there is one other binding I know, by Jeffrey Scofield, for OpenGL ES 1, and he uses this for iPhone development:
> http://psellos.com/ocaml/lablgles-build.html
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> If you don't need shaders: LablGL
> 
> If you want to do OpenGL ES 1.x (mobile device, for example): LablGLES
> 
> If you need shaders: glcaml or glMLite

Actually, LablGL has some shader support, provided by Florent Monnier.
It has been in CVS for more than a year (file src/glShader.ml), but somehow
I never came around to make a new release.
I'm really sorry for the inconvenience.

If some people could test this code, this would be most helpful, and I could
make a release in a few weeks.

Jacques Garrigue