Fa3ien wrote:

> 
>>   Thus all you who are worrying about the "new SDL" being some cryptic
>> high-end programming language only a few can understand, you have got
>> it completely wrong: Keeping the current ease-of-use and, as far as
>> possible, the same syntax, is a *major* concern in the designing of
>> the new SDL. You don't have to express your concern about this.
> 
> All these threads have precisely shown that there ARE people who would
> like POV-Ray to be driven by some high-end language (trough an API
> or whatever).
>
There might be but david's wasn't one. He mere pointed out how the 
existing SDL could be transformed *internally* to an OO type of language 
that could be parsed and executed like one.

> As Gilles said, people who are going to team to make POV 4 must make
> a choice about POV-Ray's general orientation.
> 
> Personally, I would like to see POV-Ray in the continuity of what it
> is now, with a new powerful-but-still-easy-SDL.
> 
> I guess that, in the context of an open-source development, if people
> wants to create an API layer to allow the use of other languages, or to 
> allow control by some modeller, fine.  We then could have the beer and 
> drink it.
> 
>>   (Of course a different issue is whether there's enough manpower and
>> expertise to actually develop and implement such a language.)
> 
> You idea of "get out of the core what can belong at a higher level"
> would help enlarge the number of people able to work on POV-Ray (people
> like me, who have some programming abilities, could participate without
> the need to master C++, and without being limited to sample scenes).
> 
> Please, could you put out a draft list of "things belonging to the core"
> and "things that could be implemented through a new SDL" ?
> 
> Fabien.

Post a reply to this message