That's true, but if someone (most often @MikeHart ) is putting in the time and effort, it should definitely fit the underlying needs, right?I can't imagine it would do any HARM to have such a binding
Indeed. Although, if someone simply wanted to do it, their motive and reasoning are beyond questioning. In essence: if someone wants to do it, why not? However, if it is the case that this would be a service to the community and not something done for the sheer joy of it, then you are absolutely correct!
Definitely not, I cannot sense anything wrong in your tone or wording. Your argumentation is valid and you are hearing both sides of the story, so everything is fine.I hope I don't sound too argumentative.
Oftentimes it is both and the joy is much bigger if you do something you like while knowing that it also has some impact on the people here.In essence: if someone wants to do it, why not? However, if it is the case that this would be a service to the community and not something done for the sheer joy of it
At first glance this seems to be true, but in my book diversity was one of the reasons monkey X got stuck. Too many half baked modules, while basic functionality and documentation was not fully there.Choice is always good. Diversity is good. There are some good raylib users out there who would very likely enjoy what Cerberus has to offer.
Well, It does use TTF fonts, something CX lacks of. There is also raygui, a GUI library for raylib. Not much in other areas. 2D is more efficient in CX and Vortex2 is a more mature 3D aproach than raylib´s.I was looking at raylib recently but could not decide if it worth the time and effort and at the moment I am not keen to learn a new framework. A CX binding could be interesting but what benefit raylib has to offer compared to mojo2?