<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>SharpDX Questions (new threads)</title>
		<link>http://rbwhitaker.wikidot.com/forum/c-676887/sharpdx-questions</link>
		<description>Threads in the forum category &quot;SharpDX Questions&quot; - A place to discuss anything with SharpDX.</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 18:16:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://rbwhitaker.wikidot.com/forum/t-621958</guid>
				<title>SharpDX Toolkit emphasis, or not?</title>
				<link>http://rbwhitaker.wikidot.com/forum/t-621958/sharpdx-toolkit-emphasis-or-not</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:41:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>rbwhitaker</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>88099</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>So I'm in the process of building some tutorials for SharpDX. They have an important piece called the SharpDX toolkit, which is a new part of SharpDX. It makes a lot of code look more like XNA.</p> <p>But my question is, is that better? I know on one hand, it will make it easier for people to transition over, if they've been using XNA. But on the other hand, it feels like it may not be &quot;pure&quot; SharpDX. That there are probably going to be people who'd rather cut out the façade and get right to the core of SharpDX. I don't know which path to start with in my tutorials.</p> <p>So are you a DX Purist, or an XNA Cloner?</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>