I understand your arguments and can see how many of them may be true.

However, I am not really convinced. It *may* be true that creating a
more stringent and defined "language" may scare away users. However, I
don't know if this has to be so. If the language is designed carefully,
with "non-programmer" users in mind, it may become more accessible.
This doesn't necessarily have to mean that the new language resembles
any given programming language. It could be defined in its very own way
instead.

I have the impression, that the POV-Script has (in places) grown from
some ad-hoc decisions, and is therefore (in places) bloated and not very
logical.
Example: The fact that many keywords begin with a "#". This is a typical
sign for that the person who designed the initial language and parser
did not really know too much about parsers (I hope I am not stepping on
too many toes here, because I am speculating...) The "#" makes the
keywords easier to find for the parser, an approach intuitive for many
people who are confronted with writing a parser for the first time and
don't know better. However, parser technology has for a long time been
very advanced, and there is really no need for such "crutches" to make
parsing easier.
Note: I am not saying that POVs parser is bad, since it has had a long
time to evolve. I am only pointing out the "#" as a thing that has
probably been introduced ad-hoc in one of the very first versions, and
has since been carried with the language, without having much effect
besides making the script harder to read. An example for the "bloat" I
mentioned.

I agree with Ken's assessment that it is nice to have so many different
ways to achieve the same thing. I like that too. However, to have this,
there is no need for a bloated language. Take Java for example: Newly
designed and relatively "lean" it still offers many ways to do the same
thing (and I am *not* advocating to make the POV-Script like Java! this
is just an example...).

I think that "cleaning out the undergrowth" in the language (and adding
some OO features on the way) can have positive effects both for the
"programmer" and "non-programmer" users,
_if_done_in_a_carefully_thought_through_way_!
The "programmers" will find themselves more at home in the POV-language,
and the old problem of the difficulty to parse POV-Script (no program
besides POV really can) would also be solved.
And the "non-programmers" would get a language for which the manual
would actually be *thinner* than it is now, a language that is more
approachable and easier to learn (because frankly I think, that many of
you here who advocate POV-Script as an easy language to learn have lost
perspective a bit, since you alreay *know* POV-Script: sure, newbies
*can* learn POV-Script, but the language is far from being easy to learn
and could be much more so in my opinion).

The key is: Such a redesign of the language must be very well thought
through. A quick-shot solution (with focus only on making POV more like
a "standard" programming language) is not a good solution. And also
backwards compatibility to the old script needs to be maintained, so
that the old scenes are not lost in limbo.

So far,

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message