Rudy Velthuis wrote:
> 
> Spider schrieb in Nachricht <36D46A96.FF2A70EC@bahnhof.se>...
> >Well, I'm OOP in every-way... (I do JAVA as well :-)
> >But, I think POV animations and several other things would be easier o
> >acces with .<variable>
> >Perhaps only read-only (only an only to many?) but it would still be
> >nice.
> 
> See my reply to Bob Hughes too (today, 14:17). It would really be nice to
> have them, as properties and not as keywords. There are far too many
> keywords wasted for this. Every aspect of every object is considered a
> keyword, not a property. If they were properties specific to an object (or a
> class of objects), there would be less name clashes, so the keywords could
> be shorter and simpler. Also the syntax would be simpler and clearer (to me
> at least).
> 
> The problem with the POV script language is the fact that it was a very
> simple language which has grown so radically, that more and more keywords
> had to be introduced. This is because the language had a C-like syntax and
> didn't treat objects the OO way then. So there either has to be a radical
> change to it, making it more like it should be: an object oriented
> description language, or the wild growth is likely to continue.
> 
> But I'm afraid we won't find many in the POV-Team to agree with us. And we
> might also upset old-time users, who often know the keywords by their first
> and last names.
> 
> --
> Rudy Velthuis

  Since  I don't have the advantage of a programmers background the idea of
assigning properties to a function as opposed to assigning a keyword is
being lost on me. How can you do one without the other ?

  I have always worked with the assumption that it is the job of the scene
file writer, that would be us, to pass commands to the program. It needs
this kind of input from the operater in order to process the information
in a manner consistent with out needs. If you don't have specific terms
(keywords) for assigning properties to a function you are passing to the
program how will it know what you what it to do ?

  On the topic of changing the current scene file language I see the
possibility of heavy opposition. There are the considerations of ease
of learning a difficult program like this because of it's rich, easy to
understand, object oriented language. You don't have to be a programmer
to use Pov it if you are determined enough and it shows what people are
willing to go through to see all of them pretty pictures that come out it.

 Another important point is the incredibly vast amount of resources available
that have been written as support for the program and all of these rely on
the program language not changing. If you change the language you retire the
work of people from the last 8 years many of which have finally begun to evolve
into something useful.

 Additionaly there is the Pov Teams desire to maintain backward compatibility 
with it's own incarnations. This kind of change not only has a clear and
immediate impact on every user out there, it also makes many thousands of
scene files obsolete and useless. The amount of blood, sweat, and tears, that
went into the making to those scene files would make the person who changed
the program into something considerably less than a saint or friend of the
people.


-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message