Re: thick bindings, was Re: Vulkan is here!

[Olivier Henley <olivier.henley@gmail.com>]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:21:26 PM UTC-5, tmo...@acm.org wrote:
> A thick binding, like any API, creates an abstraction intended to be
> easier and safer to program than coding at a lower level.  If you don't
> like the abstraction, don't use it - it's straightforward to code the
> necessary lower level thin binding instead.
> 
> A thick binding makes many assumptions about the state of the machine and
> coding at the thin binding level likely makes those invalid.  Luring the
> programmer into trying to code at two different abstraction levels at
> the same time is not a kindness.

1. I understand the goals of a thick binding. 

2. I questioned its architecture.

3. I answered that previously: It is "nicer" when you assume that every one swears by your coding paradigm (the one forced by the thick layer)... which is, I think, close minded. A standalone thin layer does not prevent anyone else from undertaking a thick layer over it and still retains freedom for others.

4. It is not THAT straightforward to make a pristine lower level thin binding as both Per Sandberg and Simon Wright have to exchange to clarify possible caveats.