Glen Berry wrote:

> It isn't to me, but it is for some people. I would rather see old
> versions of POV used to handle old POV code, than trying to make a new
> version of POV bend over backwards and parse legacy code. It usually
> isn't that hard to update a POV scene to fit a revised syntax. With
> the exception of halos, the feature set only seems to grow, never
> shrink. Even in the case of halos, there are work-arounds.

Hmm. Actually there are people with a large amounts of legacy code and
who are very thankful for backward compatibility ! I can work fast on
very complex scenes today because I can re-use code written 4 years ago
with little changes, apart the occasional missing semi-colon. And I'm not
talking about code that would only take 10-20 minutes of rewriting (this
is the time it may take already to track missing semi-colons).
I do update old code but, believe me, a minimal backward compatibility
is heaven-sent.

Also, I think that one of the big strengthes of POV is that is has been very
stable over the years, possibly at the expense of new stuff coming in.
POV users are basically hobbyists : unlike users working in a professional
environment (who have to keep up with every new thing because the market
demands it) they use it at their own pace, and on their spare time.
We often rely on "old stuff" to have fun, from utilities to macros, include files

or even translated manuals (for the non-English speaking people).
This legacy may be seen as a burden (it certainly is), but it is also one
of the things that keeps POV alive, because it has allowed people to become
experienced and thus make better scenes and share knowledge with new users.


G.

Post a reply to this message