SFML 2.0 vs SDL 1.3

Both are undergoing development
Both support hardware accelerated 2D out of the box
Both are licensed under the zlib license -- that's right, you are now free to statically link SDL to your programs

SFML is mostly supported by one developer, a much smaller team than the one behind SDL
SFML is only aimed at Windows/Linux/OSX for the moment, while SDL supports a much wider range of platforms
SFML 2.0 is pretty unstable at the moment, with the lead developer stating that he's prepared to completely break parts of the API prior to the 2.0 release
SDL 1.3 is probably pretty unstable as well
SFML has a much more friendly API than SDL, in my experience, although this is limited to usage of 1.2

Given my limited knowledge of SDL 1.3, I'm not sure which is the better library to side with. I originally jumped ship from SDL to SFML because of its friendlier API and hardware accelerated 2D graphics, but if SDL 1.3 is going to feature similar hardware acceleration along with a brisker, more reliable pace of development, my inclined to side with it. Can /prog/ convince me to pick a camp?

>>98
Yeah, but OpenCL/DirectCompute compilers are decent enough (most are based off of Clang/LLVM) and getting better, no reason to bother writing in assembly language. The vector intrinsics are sufficiently assembly-like already and usually have a one-to-one mapping with the underlying SIMD/SIMT/MIMD opcodes.

I don't see nVidia, AMD, Intel, ImgTech, S3, etc. all agreeing to a common ISA for programming GPU hardware any time soon, at least not this decade, so using a portable language will continue to make sense well into the future.

But you're right, the GPU/CPU memory model will at least be merged so you can just copy data around and pass pointers across CPU/GPU boundary and it will just work. That at least will make things easier.