Can You Create a Cerberusx game engine version of Raylib?? raylib language binding?

Fasasoftware

New member
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
24
Can You Create a Cerberusx game engine version of Raylib??

raylib language binding???

Thanks a lot in advance..Lestroso
 

MikeHart

Administrator
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
3,042
You mean something like this?

1624484326359.png
 

Jimmy

Active member
3rd Party Module Dev
Tutorial Author
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
715
It looks very interesting!
 

ddabrahim

Active member
Tutorial Author
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
153
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?
 

Phil7

Administrator
CX Code Contributor
3rd Party Tool Dev
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
602
Well, I can only imagine it to be usefull, if you already have a big raylib project and you want to move to CX. Otherwise I don't see benefits as it also uses openGL afak, so it doesn't add anything substantial.
 

bearheathen

New member
Joined
Jul 11, 2021
Messages
3
I've always enjoyed raylib. I know I'm a new person here, but I can't imagine it would do any HARM to have such a binding. I'd use it, certainly, as (since I am a Cerberus n00b) I know raylib better anyway. Just my 2 coppers. :D
 

Phil7

Administrator
CX Code Contributor
3rd Party Tool Dev
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
602
Welcome to the forum!
If I see it correctly, the use case is to get from raylib code to cerberus code (including cerberus modules) or to get from knowing raylib to knowing cerberus, right?

Maybe other options are better for that.
We could emulate the Raylib commands with mojo2 commands as a module, so there is no need to implement real raylib files and no need for maintenance. Or maybe it is enough to have a cheatsheet with common Raylib commands and their counterparts in mojo2.

I can't imagine it would do any HARM to have such a binding
That's true, but if someone (most often @MikeHart ) is putting in the time and effort, it should definitely fit the underlying needs, right?
 

bearheathen

New member
Joined
Jul 11, 2021
Messages
3
That's true, but if someone (most often @MikeHart ) is putting in the time and effort, it should definitely fit the underlying needs, right?
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!

Of course, this is also true of the library itself. Mojo (at least at first blush) seems to be a complete and quite competent library. There are only two reasons to use something else that make sense: Desire (as described above), and choice. 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.

The Raylib Github and website itself quite proudly displays all of its adaptations to this or that language. Cerberus would be another choice for users (in essence you're helping Raylib users as well). It would also increase exposure for Cerberus. A mutually beneficial arrangement, I should think. Win-win!

I hope I don't sound too argumentative. I like your thinking, and you have caused me to think more deeply, which is great! My fiance tells me all the time I'm too forward and hostile, so apologies if I've come across as such here. :)

I'm working through the tutorials I've found now. This is quite a capable product!

Edit: Added clarification
 

MikeHart

Administrator
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
3,042
Welcome to the forum @bearheathen , it is great that you joined this place. May I ask how you have discovered us?

Regarding raylib, some kind of binding is doable, that is for sure. CX is lacking structs and certain data datatype or pointers. The later two can be faked to an extend and structs can be faked by classes. All need some conversion code.
It's not a straight forward porting and requires quite some work. I doubt that I have in the near future. If anything it would be a for fun project to get the mind of something.

What does raylib bring to table? Just like AGK, a different API and some features like another 3D solution.
 

Martin

Active member
CX Code Contributor
3rd Party Module Dev
Tutorial Author
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
334
I don't see any reason to add some raylib binding. For 2D it doesn't add anything new and the 3d part is actually very, very limited in raylib. It's just a wrapper around OpenGL, so lots of stuff would need to be added. I know Raylib kind of well.
 

MikeHart

Administrator
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
3,042
Personally, I see supporting Vortex a more sensible choice as it is a CX module already
 

Martin

Active member
CX Code Contributor
3rd Party Module Dev
Tutorial Author
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
334
Most definitely yes! There are enough things to do than adding another layer of complexity with another framework to wrap... (metal, metal, :D )
 

MikeHart

Administrator
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
3,042
I hear ya. But if metalangle is no solution to our problem then we need to create a let's call it mojo3 for sure.
 

Martin

Active member
CX Code Contributor
3rd Party Module Dev
Tutorial Author
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
334
Uaaa. mojo3, the future of it all. ;)
 

Phil7

Administrator
CX Code Contributor
3rd Party Tool Dev
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
602
I hope I don't sound too argumentative.
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.

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
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.

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.
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.
To me, there should be one well rounded package with all the essential stuff in place, and after that, all kinds of bells and whistles can be added.
Nevertheless it is important to keep the door open to something like raylib to get the attention of new users and get them started. What do you think: Would you prefer the raylib emulator route, some kind of cheatsheet or guide for raylib users, or is a real language binding necessary? Could you explain why?
 
Last edited:

Amishara

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
4
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?
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.
 
Top Bottom