Mark Gordon wrote:
> 
> You're correct that it's not as clear as it might be, but it's not as
> obfuscated as one might expect, either.  
Hehe, since I'm not all that much into C I haven't looked at the source,
but... I can recall a few demo contests where the target wass to do a 
raytracer for a sphere... next time it wwas a waterfall.. (I actually
coded one, but not in time..)

> The version that fits on an
> index card, now THAT'S obfuscated! 
yeah... like warp's .sig :)

> It could be worse; it was optimized
> for a minimum number of tokens in the source code, so it's actually
> optimally simple, with no incentive to use non-intuitive variable names,
> for instance. 
*nods*
> It's also not as obfuscated as some of the loop
> optimization I've seen. 
hehe, love the inline assembler in pascal there... *recalls* all loops
were recoded into asm just for speed sake.. (why did it place it on the
stack in each for() looop??)

> The comments are a bit sparse, but it contains
> such functions as the following:
> 
> double vdot(A, B)
> vec A, B;
> {return A.x*B.x + A.y*B.y + A.z*B.z;}
hmm, not the worst I've seen, but still :)
 
> The coding style is unorthodox to say the least, but the intent is
> pretty clear.  And hey, he asked for "VERY small raytracers".  That's
> the exact focus of the article I cited.  Be careful what you ask for;
> you just might get it. ;-)
Yeah..

Hmm, anyone got the source for reality? No? strange... I'd like to patch
it :)

//Spider

Post a reply to this message