Chris Huff wrote:

> I am not sure if some of these things, like cloud objects, fur, trees,
> etc, would be a good language feature. It would be faster parsing, but
> that is about it. It would be more difficult to modify, if you want to
> customize it you would have to become a patch programmer. These seem
> like things best taken care of by include files and macros.

Well we have features like sky_sphere, rainbow, background, and
fog which are limited in scope but are still included with the
program and serve a purpose. Even limited functionality is better
than no functionality when you have no idea how to code it yourself.
Not everyone who uses POV-Ray has an internet connect nor do they
visit these groups. Many find the program on shareware CD's that
do not have a collection of the include files that we take for
granted. Some of these features like you mentioned can be better
handled and optimized internaly. Have you ever tried Gilles tree
macro with a recursion level over 7 ? MAN! it takes forever to parse.

> Now, something like an L-system object would be a different matter...it
> would still be quite flexible but would also parse much faster and
> probably consume less memory.

And as much material as is available on L-Systems I am surprised a
patch hasn't been presented.

 
> > Good point(s). What I also fear is that if the programming language
> > is extended in POV-Ray to include OO programming, for () loops, and
> > all of the other programming suggestions that have been addressed
> > in this thread, is what is going to happen when some non programming
> > literate POV-User comes to the news groups seeking help and some
> > programmer type gives them an example in the form of these new
> > features ? The programmer types (and there a lot of them here in the
> > groups that answer questions on a regular basis) will quickly adopt
> > the attitude that everyone thinks like them and give examples in
> > their language style of choice, while the real truth of the matter
> > is that they could express themselves in a way that the people
> > seeking help will not understand a word they are saying.
> 
> Do you really think the #for() loop would be harder to understand than a
> #while() loop? I think it would be easier to understand, at least, I
> found it easiest to understand and use when I was learning programming.
> (in Tandy and Commodore BASIC, yuck)

As I mentioned to Mr. Hubert what is easy for you is not always going
to be easy for everyone. Years ago I used for() loops and have completely
forgotten how to use them. AS time goes by I remember and miss them
less.

> And why all the paranoia about object-oriented features? What does a POV
> script do? It manipulates *objects*. The object oriented features would
> only make this simpler. 500 pages? Try 5 pages, for the in depth
> description including examples. I'm not talking about inheritance, that
> wouldn't be necessary. I'm talking about the ability to have objects
> have accessible data(like MyCamera.location) and to attach variables and
> macros to objects.

And I keep seeing the same tired example. What else can you do with OO
that you can't already do in POV-Ray ? How many of the current users will
be able to understand a scene example from you using OO if you provided
one ? Even other programmers balk at the idea. Shouldn't the non programmer
user also worry ?
 
> > I would probably not use the new version if it became to hard to
> > learn. This would restrict me to using the older versions of the
> > program and I would miss out on new features.
> 
> Few of the feature requests I have seen would cause problems with
> backward compatability...

Ok, you maintain backward compatibility but how much bloat will it
add ? Will POV-Ray run faster ?

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message