> It is complex to parse, but parsing isn't the only thing that is
> important. 

	You're right - parsing is not the only important
	thing - but it is important.

> And I really don't see why I would want to use Internet Explorer(or any
> web browser) to parse POV scripts or edit POV scripts with a web page.

	Internet Explorer is capable of displaying an XMLish POV
	script in "traditional" POV script, complete with syntax
	highlighting.  Alternatively, you could display it in
	whatever notation makes the most sense.  The important
	point is that many applications will be able to work with
	XML, whereas not many applications will ever be able to 
	work with POV Script, except as ASCII text.

> I guess we have different priorities. I(and apparently most people here)
> want a language which is more flexible and easier to read than the
> current POV-Script, and you want a language which you can write a parser
> for more easily.(or use an existing parser for)

	XML is more flexible than POV Script.   One way to keep 
	everyone happy, would be to provide a translation layer
	from POV script.  It's a better design than having a
	monolythic parser that tries to be everything to everyone.
	
> And for the majority of extensions, you would still have to modify the
> POV source code.

	Yes, but these changes would be much simpler.

> Writing POV from a program is easy

	Yes, but once in POV script, you can't do anything else
	with it.

> That is why I am working on POV C-SDL! Which happens to be human
> readable-writable. :-)

	What I've seen of POV C-SDL looks quite nice.
	Do you think this should be layered on top of
	POV, or compiled straight into the binary?
	(Where do I find docco on POV C-SDL?)

> Do you think there is no reason the most popular programming languages
> are designed the way they are? The "flat text" format happens to be
> quite versatile, and human *creatable* and human *readable* instead of
> something that can only be tweaked by hand and which has to be generated
> and read by a program.

	Programmers are quite familiar with the strengths and
	weaknesses of using flat text.  There is not reason that
	programming languages should have to be this way. To
	limit your imagination to this way of doing things is
	unnecessary.

> You seem to define language differently from everyone else. A language
> is more than the data model it represents. Otherwise, Pascal and C could
> be considered the same language. XML would let *programs* manage the
> data more effectively, but would greatly restrict what humans can do.

	Pascal and C are nearly equivalent languages.  They are
	basically the same technology.  The fact that it's
	possible to generise away from either Pascal and C
	and provide translation to either - is a powerful idea.
	
	The point here is the exact format expected by a particular
	compiler (say C or Pascal) is not as important as the 
	struture of the underlying data that you're feeding it.
	XML captures this data, while being generic about the
	formatting.

> What cross-platform GUI tools are you referring to?

	A few off the top of my head:

	V is a cross platform C++ library for GUI's
	Qt is the basis for the KDE project
	Gtk is the basis for Gnome, and is being ported to windows
	Java
	There are quite a few other options.

> It will be a long time until a (graphical) tool is available on
> all the platforms POV runs on. 

	I don't think it's as big an issue as you believe it is.

> Many people would probably give up on POV before then...

	I think that as long as people still have POV script
	as an option, they are not going to be concerned with
	the underlying technology used for implementation.

> Just don't forget that it won't keep developing if everyone stops using
> it because of a poor design choice.

	I think that using POV Script as _the only_ way to get
	data into POV is a worse design choice.  

--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] nigelscom)
Research Student, Software Developer
Y2K is the new millenium for the mathematically challenged.

Post a reply to this message