Darren New wrote:
>> what  was contained in 90% of your posts so far, I have tried to 
>> resist replying to your Tcl "example" long enough now:  Tcl is at best 
>> byte-compiled (like Java) and then either interpreted or just-in-time 
>> compiled,
> 
> Correct.  So?

That is *not* the topic of this discussion!  Yet you bring up Tcl over and 
over again.  Yet, as we are not discussing Tcl, you should not be bringing 
up Tcl.

Maybe simpler words will do: Tcl is not the same thing as a plug-in for 
POV-Ray, it cannot be used to write plug-ins for POV-Ray and it also 
provides nothing to implement plug-ins for POV-Ray.  So, while you may love 
Tcl, pointing that out repeatedly is of no use for the topic being discussed.

> Right. That's why I'm talking about the stubs interface to dynamically 
> loaded .DLL compiled code in Tcl. The fact that Tcl's interpreted has 
> nothing to do with the stubs interface or the fact that it loads DLLs 
> that are compiled machine code.

Which is not a plug-in, thus has nothing to do with the topic being 
discussed, and as such, also you have made clear now that your favorite 
language is Tcl, it is of no use to POV-Ray and cannot be used to implement 
POV-Ray plug-ins. As such, mentioning Tcl if of no use for the topic being 
discussed.

> In other words, while you're right that "Tcl is at best byte-compiled", 
> you're also right that that fact has nothing to do with shared libraries 
> and plug-ins based on those.

Exactly, and we are not discussing Tcl here.  As such, that you keep 
claiming Tcl would provide a solution to make shared-libary plug-ins for 
POV-Ray is based no no facts, it is just your imagination.  We are not 
discussing what is possible in your imagination. We already know from past 
discussions it is in conflict with the reality the rest of the world is 
living in.

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message