PoD wrote in message <38E4055B.5EA96B54@merlin.net.au>...
>Nigel Stewart wrote:
>>
>>         This is the basis of our misunderstanding.
>>
>>         POV script is good for what it is.
>
>What you seem to fail to understand is that POV is not a rendering
>engine, it is a scene description language.


I think I made a similar point in my original post.  The POV language is
tightly coupled to the rendering machine.  The rendering engine is part and
parcel of the whole caboodle, though.

I also made the point that the POV language has got it right from the point
of the artist, e.g. it enables people to sit at a text editor and construct
scenes which match their mental scenes.  Lovely.

>Try to replace the language (I know you're not) and you'll not only get
>howls of outrage from users,



>but you won't have POV any more.


This could descend into talk of semiotics and the nature of identity, but
let's not go there.

>Replace the rendering engine and it's still POV. If the new engine is
>faster and/or gives the better output, you'll be congratulated.
>
>Nobody really cares about the renderer except those who coded it.
>The lagnuage *IS* POV-Ray.


A controversial statement, this, although I appreciate the spirit of it.

At the risk of stating the obvious, POV is an inexpensive (as opposed to
cheap) raytracer, developed by some great people, with a delicately
structured language which allows you to raytrace scenes.  It has a good
reputation, and the POV community incorporates and rewards the work that
people put in to extend it and make it better.  But first and foremost it is
the cost and quality of the rendering engine that makes POVRay popular.
Making the language more complex, or more obtuse, would obviously diminish
both the reputation and popularity of POVRay.  But the best language on a
pathetic renderer would quickly cross the great firewall in the sky.

I agree with you that I don't care about how good the code is.  But it seems
a shame to tie both the language and the machine together like this.  What
are the real objections to allowing the rendering technology in POVRay to be
used in a way other than through the POV language?  I can see worries that
POVRay would become a library in some monolithic corporation's product and
this team not getting any credit for it.  I can see that the POV community
has effectively created and contributed to a brand, and doesn't want it to
be diluted.  Are these good reasons for tying language and renderer
together?

Nick Drew

HyperSpace Ltd,Birmingham Research Park, Edgbaston, UK, B15 2SQ
(e) hyp### [at] btinternetcom           (t) +44 (0)121 414 7019

Post a reply to this message