Ken wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
>   As we all know the language used by POV-Ray is not only easy to use
> but offers a lot of flexibility. There are often many ways to describe
> an object or attribute of an object because of the "looseness" of
> it's language.
> 
>  Now many in the past have argued that it is too primitive for thier
> needs and suggest that it become more of an official programming
> language. They also suggest it should become more object oriented
> or stricter rules should be applied to the language from what it is
> now. Some say the syntax is too loose for all practical purposes.
> Some even suggest it should move to a binary format that needs to
> be compiled before being parsed (heaven forbid).
> 
>  I say the one thing that attracted me to POV-Ray was the fact that
> it's text based input was both easy to learn, was intuitive from the
> beginning, and I never had to learn a programmers language to use
> the program. I like the way that you can describe something in several
> ways to achieve the same results. In my opinion this loose and very
> flexible language makes it a very powerful program to use.
> 
> Would you have difficulty re-learning POV-Ray if it's language format
> changed ?
> Would you resent it or maybe even quit using the program completely ?

Ken, if I had to re-learn the language, then it would probably be a
fairly large inducement for me to change over to RenderMan. One of
the reasons I like POV-Ray is that it is much easier to use (and
has a quicker turnaround time, if you're using the procedural RI
API) than RenderMan. It's easier to get raytracing effects, too.
However, if everything I know about POV-Ray (and admittedly it isn't
as much as I'd like) were thrown out in the street, then I'd
look around.

Post a reply to this message