Talk:graphics engine

graphics engine
Again, sum of parts. Even the definition says nothing more than "an engine that does graphics". We can also have a physics engine, a music engine, a conversation engine, etc. ad infinitum. Equinox ◑ 20:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep idiomatic - there is no physical engine. --Connel MacKenzie 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is irrelevant. Look at what engine means in computing terms. Anything of this kind can be a ___ engine. You might as well argue to keep car engine because there is no engine in the computing sense. Equinox ◑ 22:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that car engine should also be a valid entry here is irrelevant. Again, the premise of nominating this only because it can be sum-of-parts is an error.  That alone is no justification for deletion.  Even if that ill-conceived notion had currency, this specific case goes far beyond that.  The term graphics engine is idiomatic.  That alone, is reason enough for it to be kept.  --Connel MacKenzie 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think physics engine might be worth having because it's a bit abstract, but I'm not sure if there's a good enough reason to keep graphics engine, as common as it is both in the programming world and the video game world. "Technical term" isn't convincing to me, seems like a cop-out in this case. Certainly the other examples are not inclusion worthy. 63.95.64.254 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep The meaning is not self-evident – we can see this because the definition expands software engine.

By the way, both software engine and application are jargon, and the definition totally depends on words in the term. How about An independent part of a computer program that processes information for visual display, or some such? —Michael Z. 2009-03-24 16:56 z 

Kept per consensus --Jackofclubs 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Still strongly feel this should be deleted. Ah well. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)