Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Can 'graphics' be a file descriptor?
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 15:16:27 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <08be9710b964a1b236ba75a2fbec97c9a7ea6297.camel@gmail.com>
References: <d0fcbe9e7b29ce6f9a0604058475b0aa9a23d5cb.camel@gmail.com>
		<87msgaubjj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
		<0bfa49a6d580546ab2db91aeac7627afb19e492d.camel@gmail.com>
	 <87ikqytb9d.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 08:16:28 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d1b0284356da0b107574561b234ddbaa";
	logging-data="3356877"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gwybZ2Ugl0XxLOYCiZOHl"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.2 (3.54.2-1.fc41)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lg9HC1WBTSNdH7kfLgukeCdy0Uo=
In-Reply-To: <87ikqytb9d.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Bytes: 3718

On Wed, 2025-01-01 at 14:33 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2025-01-01 at 01:29 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
> [...]
> > > A file *descriptor* is a small integer referring to some file-like
> > > entity, used with open/close/read/write.=C2=A0 There's no such thing =
in
> > > standard C; it's a POSIX concept.
> [...]
> > I would like to have opinions about the idea "graphics being a file
> > descriptor".=C2=A0 The implement is irrevent for the discussion. Some
> > imagination is required.
>=20
> Why do you insist on referring to "file descriptors"?=C2=A0 That's a spec=
ific
> term with a specific meaning: a small integer value used in POSIX I/O
> (not in standard C).

I do not insist anything. I would just like to have an opinion on the idea=
=20
"graphics being a file descriptor".

> If you mean FILE* pointers, the discussion might have some relevance to
> C.=C2=A0 If you really mean POSIX file descriptors, comp.unix.programmer
> might be a better place.

In one scenario, I can take that as 'the opinion'.

> Sure, you could have a graphics system where a program interacts with
> the display by reading and writing to FILE* pointers.=C2=A0 You'd have to
> encode the operations and returned data as streams of bytes.=C2=A0 I'm no=
t
> convinced there would be much advantage.

FILE* is full of 'upgrade' enough not to consider (technically this is only=
 my=C2=A0
30 year ago opinion. Nowadays, it becomes more complicated, seemingly only=
=20
functions to support old software in the name of 'standard'. In the confine=
ment,
you are doomed not going too far, which should not be the goal of 'standard=
').
With file descriptor, there is at least mmap. The concern might be that 'th=
e=20
display' may not simply be a range of memory (this is not a strong enough
reason for me). But this may still be fine, we can have option of I/O by re=
ad/
write or by mmap. These are hardware things. I had implemented a simple GUI=
 in=20
DOS (DOS4G) and 3D rendering pipeline based on plain 'frame buffer'. That
experience tell me the idea "graphics being a file descriptor" is plausible=
=20
except I don't feel comfortable with this idea after these years. What invo=
lved
can be huge (desktop, graphics terminal, matrix, AI, parallel computing), b=
ut=C2=A0
I think from C's point of view (building OS), something to draw image shoul=
d be =20
simpler and discussable, at least just opinion should be fine.