Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> POV-Ray allows you to do that, not as a side-effect of the SDL, but
> precisely BY DESIGN.  Drop that, and you kill POV-Ray (there are
> already many nice and free pure renderers out there).

  (Somewhat unrelated to your post specifically, ie. I'm not directly
replying to *you*, but I thought I post this somewhere, and this could
be a good place.)

  I think some people are having a slight misconception about this whole
discussion. What they seem to see is some people talking about how to
create a "new" SDL which is more of a programming language, and they are
expressing their concern that this new SDL might not be so accessible to
non-programmers than the current SDL.

  I think this is the complete opposite: It's *because* the new SDL
*must* be accessible to non-programmers why there's so much discussion.
If accessibility to non-programmers would not be a concern, then this
whole thing would be a lot easier: Just embed some LUA or AngelScript
into POV-Ray as its native scripting language, perhaps with some
enhancements and a library of auxiliary functions, and there you are.

  However, precisely because some kind of "backwards compatibility" must
be preserved (in both syntax, as far as is possible, and ease-of-use)
that this is being discussed.

  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.

  (Of course a different issue is whether there's enough manpower and
expertise to actually develop and implement such a language.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message