|
 |
You are correct. With the advent of the PC, the computer priesthood (who
stood between the masses and the mainframe) lost their exalted place in
society's firmament. Programs like POVRay and simple tools like basic and
HTML only further exacerbated that reduction in power and prestige held by
the priests of the machine.
They have stewed over this for years. Now they are working to be come
ascendant again.
All one has to do is look at the new developments in basic (e.g. object
oriented visual basic), HTML (XML), and simple programs like POVRay to see
their method of choice. They have decided d that if they can make tools
(that were previously simple things that ordinary people could do) very
complicated and complex to use, the poor, teeming masses of the regular user
community will be forced into supplication again.
They will try to confuse you by talking about added features and more
powerful applications but, at the end of the day, the average schmoo like
you and me find that the things we could do easily before now require
priestly intervention for success.
It's a sad thing but something we must continue to resist. Computers should
be for people to use without the requirement of priestly intervention.
Jim
has decided to reassert their control over PCs
"Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworld com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1611abca539fd5fd989a0f@news.povray.org...
> Is it just me, or does POV seem to be turning more and more into a
> programmers toy...
>
> I started back in the days of 2.2, when the requirements for using POV
> were more 3D geometry, but now, with Isosurfaces, loops etc. it seems to
> require programming skills to use to the full.
>
> I am not a programmer, this is why I use Moray to put scenes together,
> but this question was prompted by the number of people in the 'Most
> common way to make POV files?' thread that have said thay they write, or
> have written prgrams to output POV code.
>
> <sigh> Maybe I'm just bitter and twisted, but I'd still like to know what
> people think.
>
> Bye for now,
> Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
