Nieminen Juha <war### [at] punarastascstutfi> wrote in message
news:383e62b8@news.povray.org...
>
>   Personally I like C++ more. For some reason I have never liked Java
> (most probably due to the limitations they made to make it a more "secure"
> programming language).

I like both C++ and Java and use them as appropriate for the job. What do
you have in mind when you say "limitations"?

>   On the other hand, compilable programming languages, like C++ or Java,
are
> a bit tedious to use for this kind of purpose. Every time you make a
little
> change you have to compile and run it.

I think Java has an advantage over C++ here, because it doesn't need to be
linked.
If you set up your Java development environment (whichever it is) correctly,
you almost always have a "Run" button or command, that compiles and runs the
application. I don't see a difference to interpreted languages, since I
don't expect POV programs to be large (e.g. short compile times). The
execution time of the Java program would simply be "Compile_Time +
Execution_Time", which could still be faster than the execution time of a
script language (and then of course, I don't like Perl very much, too
cryptic...)

> Johannes Hubert <jht### [at] nove-mailcom> wrote:
> : Another advantage would be, that errors that otherwise could become
obvious
> : only after a lengthy parsing time, would appear already at compile time
or
> : at Java runtime. The resulting POV file would be a plain vanilla file
> : without #if, #whiles and such, and thus be quite fast to parse (I guess)
and
> : guaranteed to be without parsing errors.
>
>   I don't know if this could be an advantage. The file sizes would grow
> wildly. Just imagine a landscape made of 100000 spheres...

You have a point there...
The "POV-Java" would have to have features so that you can, where you want
it, insert POV-loops.

Well, I guess it is rather a strange idea, since probably no-one would use
it anyway... :-)

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message