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?

>>8
What kind of bloated SFML build do you have?

  294 400 sfml-audio-d.dll
   89 600 sfml-audio.dll
2 200 064 sfml-graphics-d.dll
1 207 296 sfml-graphics.dll
  270 848 sfml-network-d.dll
   81 408 sfml-network.dll
  153 088 sfml-system-d.dll
   34 816 sfml-system.dll
  199 168 sfml-window-d.dll
   44 544 sfml-window.dll
10 File(s) 4 575 232 bytes

   89 600 sfml-audio.dll
1 207 296 sfml-graphics.dll
   81 408 sfml-network.dll
   34 816 sfml-system.dll
   44 544 sfml-window.dll
5 File(s) 1.457.664 bytes

Not to mention that SDL.dll does not include networking and audio, last time I checked.

Even if you were to include libsndfile-1.dll (325 120 bytes) and openal32.dll (208 896 bytes) for some reason, you would still be very far away from 20mb.