> >       Yes, but once in POV script, you can't do anything else
> >       with it.
> 
> I really don't know what you mean by that...

	I mean that once data is stored in POV format,
	it is trapped there.  Worse than that, it may not
	even be compatible with the next version of POV.

> >       (Where do I find docco on POV C-SDL?)
> I am making an attempt, but would welcome any help anyone 
> would want to give.).

	I'm happy to look at what you've got, or exchange 
	email, but I don't have enough time to follow it
	on the newsgroups.  I'll keep an eye out though...

> >       Programmers are quite familiar with the strengths and
> >       weaknesses of using flat text.  
> But is it actually limiting? I don't feel very limited...

	Yes it is.  I spent all afternoon staring at C++ code
	wondering why there is no facility to have graphical
	documentation embedded in the source code.  I do
	graphics programming, and the geometric result of
	code is not always obvious from the C++ code.  Why
	can't I extend the C++ file format to stick anything
	in there that is relevant?  Why can't I rename the
	member "A::doXYZ()" without doing a search and replace?
	Why can't I get an instant list of all everywhere that
	a certain variable is modified, or a function called?
	The compiler figures out all this information but 
	doesn't use it for useful things.  C++ programmers
	are trapped all day in this klunky ASCII view of
	their problem.  

	I'm sure that some punch-card users didn't feel
	very limited either.  I used to think Commodore
	Basic was pretty cool.  Then machine language,
	then C, then C++.  You don't really see the 	
	limitations until you are freed from them.

> >       Pascal and C are nearly equivalent languages. 
> But they are separate languages. 

	They are referred to as separate language, but
	they are actually so similar that it may be better
	to refer to them as "dialects of procedural programming".
	

> The problem is that it is too generic, it can't be hand-edited easily.
> Special tools are required.

	Special tools are required for editing text too.
	You need a computer, monitor, keyboard and
	text editing program.  Are you taking all this
	technology for granted?  It must be working well!

> I don't understand this "flexibility" argument, at some point it has to
> be converted into data structures in RAM. The only thing that would make
> adding features easier would be the universal syntax, and that could be
> done in other ways just as well.

	Why would you do it in "other ways"?   You think
	you know better?  Do you think XML is some gimmick
	that Microsoft cooked up to make you upgrade all
	of your software?  Find out more about XML,
	at the very least it will improve your ability
	to argue against it. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message