Hello guys,

  I'm just a poor Linux user who wishes he could use the brand-new and
(apparently) greatly improved versions of POV-Ray. The problem is, the
POV-Team seems to have a bit changed its opinion of porting POV-Ray:
it seems that the panel of officially supported platforms tends to
converge on the single Windows 95 version (maybe I'm a bit
exaggerating here), and the announces they make do not even have a
[WIN] flag. I dont' blame it, I just regret it: they seem to spend a
lot of time on the editor and the interface, which concerns only one
platform, and they feel continuously bugged by people like me who
just require the renderer and no interface (no use for an interface
when you have Emacs).

  My point is, I'm more and more seriously thinking about how hard it
is to make a portable GUI, and I am more and more seriously thinking I
won't resist to try to make one soon. "This guy's just mad, GUI cannot
be portable!" Yeah, maybe. I still want to give it a try. There are
many ways to do it, and if you consider me crazy I would like to know
why, because if not I am really going to try hard. Please give me your
opinion about the following ideas:

 - A Tk interface. I don't know Tk yet, but I'll have to learn it
anyway for a professionnal job, and from what I read it seems quite
easy and quite portable. The underlying language would be either
Python or Tcl, which I also plan to learn in the next few weeks. My
proposed plan would be to extend these languages with C-written
functions that I would get from POV-Ray.

 - An Emacs interface. Would be a bit messy to do, but it would
provide the greatest editor ever (if people really do edit their POV
files with vi, please contact either me or your local analyst), thus
saving time for the POV-Team and providing a portable (and highly
customizable) editor. It could even be done with XEmacs, which would
give the nice graphical elements. I know there's already a major mode
for editing POV files, I could adapt it and extend it to match the new
syntax elements, and add the POV-Ray front-end on top of it.

  I know these methods could not really be as fast as a C-written
interface (despite the difference would not be *that* visible), but
anyway who cares? The hard point in raytracing is number-crunching,
not text editing... And embedding a C function into a Python program
won't slow it down, neither will an external program (the render-only
part of POV-Ray) be slowed down if called from an Emacs.

  Yes, that's a lot of work, but I'm ready to get involved in
it. Anyway I will, but even more if I get feedback about these
methods. Who's interested? Who's interested in the result? Who's
interested in helping (merely by beta-testing, but why not by coding
too)? I need your advice...

  And it can also lead to a bazaar model of development for POV-Ray,
like the one used for many other open source software pieces, which
gives pretty good results (no, my father's name is not Eric Raymond, I
just read his article some days ago). Anyway, let the POV-Team
choose...

  May our rays be forever traced,

Roland.
-- 
Les francophones m'appellent Roland Mas,
English speakers call me Rowlannd' Mass,
Nihongode hanasu hitoha [Lolando Masu] to iimasu.
Choisissez ! Take your pick ! Erande kudasai !

Post a reply to this message

In article <m3a### [at] rpc66acratrcojp> , mas### [at] acratrcojp (Roland Mas)
wrote:

>  Hello guys,
>
>  I'm just a poor Linux user who wishes he could use the brand-new and
>(apparently) greatly improved versions of POV-Ray. The problem is, the
>POV-Team seems to have a bit changed its opinion of porting POV-Ray:
>it seems that the panel of officially supported platforms tends to
>converge on the single Windows 95 version (maybe I'm a bit
>exaggerating here), and the announces they make do not even have a
>[WIN] flag. I dont' blame it, I just regret it: they seem to spend a
>lot of time on the editor and the interface, which concerns only one
>platform, and they feel continuously bugged by people like me who
>just require the renderer and no interface (no use for an interface
>when you have Emacs).

I strongly disagree!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eduard and I are doing the Mac version, and it is not the case that all use Windows. I
WILL NEVER (yes, never, I would stop computing at all!!!!!) use Windows as development
platform.
And so you simply got the wrong image, why do you think there is this BIG note about
the source code and the Linux version etc.? 
We are working hard on the Mac side and you get the impression only Windows is
supported?

Hmm, looks the Mac side needs better public relations :-)


Just my own opinion!


Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://www.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

> - A Tk interface. I don't know Tk yet, but I'll have to learn it
>anyway for a professionnal job, and from what I read it seems quite
>easy and quite portable. The underlying language would be either
>Python or Tcl, which I also plan to learn in the next few weeks. My
>proposed plan would be to extend these languages with C-written
>functions that I would get from POV-Ray.

I've never used Tcl/Tk either, but if portability is what you're looking for
then this seems like a good platform.  I think Emacs is a Unix only
solution, whereas Tcl/Tk covers Unix, Windows 95/98/NT, and (I think) BeOS,
mkLinux and MacOS - probably other even more esoteric operating systems have
a version as well.  I'll have to check.

Have you considered (yikes!) Java?

>  Yes, that's a lot of work, but I'm ready to get involved in
>it. Anyway I will, but even more if I get feedback about these
>methods. Who's interested? Who's interested in the result? Who's
>interested in helping (merely by beta-testing, but why not by coding
>too)? I need your advice...


I'd be interested in helping, as it looks like I'll be studying the POV code
in detail anyway (See "POV and 3DNow! instruction set" conversation thread).
At the very least I could beta test for you...

Perhaps this thread, (and the 3DNow! thread) should be moved to
"povray.programming" since that is what we seem to be talking about....

Rik
Graphics Lurker
rli### [at] pipcomcom

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> writes:

> And so you simply got the wrong image, why do you think there is
> this BIG note about the source code and the Linux version etc.? 

  All right, either I got misunderstood or I am actually too
frustrated by the lack of the sources to get the truth (probably more
of the latter).

  My point was not to blame anybody (and I'm genuinely sorry if I hurt
your feelings) but to propose concrete things. I know of course that
Windows 95 is not the only supported platform, I know that there are
Mac users, and OS/2 users, and Unix users, and so on. The real point
is: why continue developing one interface for each of these platforms,
instead of writing one that is portable? This is just an idea, of
course. But if I add that I personnally intend to develop at least one
of the two interfaces I described before, what wrong is there?

  The other point can get into political implications, but I can't
help finding this would be a good idea. I mean the bazaar development
models. Here I refer to Eric Raymond's article, "The Cathedral and the
Bazaar", which you can find at the following URL:
<URL:http://www.earthspace.net/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/>. I
know that there are some legal papeworks to be done in order to switch
to this model, so it gives to choose between working on POV-Ray or
doing the legal stuff for a while, but I think it would allow a much
faster development. Well, at least a much faster debugging, the Team
can easily refuse all submissions from other people than its own
members concerning new features, thus accepting only bug-fix patches.

> We are working hard on the Mac side and you get the impression only
> Windows is supported?

  No, really I don't. Well, yes, I sometimes do (mainly in jealousy
moments), but I know I'm wrong.

> Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
> 
> I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.

  Ooommmmm...

> Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://www.povray.org

  Almost my home page :-)

Roland Mas.
-- 
Les francophones m'appellent Roland Mas,
English speakers call me Rowlannd' Mass,
Nihongode hanasu hitoha [Lolando Masu] to iimasu.
Choisissez ! Take your pick ! Erande kudasai !

Post a reply to this message

"Rik Ling" <rli### [at] pipcomcom> writes:

> I've never used Tcl/Tk either, but if portability is what you're looking for
> then this seems like a good platform.  I think Emacs is a Unix only
> solution, whereas Tcl/Tk covers Unix, Windows 95/98/NT, and (I think) BeOS,
> mkLinux and MacOS - probably other even more esoteric operating systems have
> a version as well.  I'll have to check.

  I did not know about that, but I suspected it. As for Emacs, you're
just a bit wrong: from the list of supported architectures one can
find many flavours of Unices (of course) and GNUs, MS-DOS, Windows 95,
Windows 98, Windows NT, OS/2, Mac OS, and probably BeOS. That's pretty
portable, isn't it?

> Have you considered (yikes!) Java?

  I hoped nobody would ask... No, I haven't. The Java courses I got
made me think it is not a language I want to practice before several
years (when it really works). And I already have to learn Python and
Tk (probably a bit of Tcl) within a few weeks, so please do not start
any religion wars.

> I'd be interested in helping, as it looks like I'll be studying the POV code
> in detail anyway (See "POV and 3DNow! instruction set" conversation thread).
> At the very least I could beta test for you...

  Yes! One! Come one, you others, join in!

> Perhaps this thread, (and the 3DNow! thread) should be moved to
> "povray.programming" since that is what we seem to be talking
> about....

  Shure... Followup-To: povray.programming.

Roland.
-- 
Les francophones m'appellent Roland Mas,
English speakers call me Rowlannd' Mass,
Nihongode hanasu hitoha [Lolando Masu] to iimasu.
Choisissez ! Take your pick ! Erande kudasai !

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
: I strongly disagree!!!!!!!!!!!!

: Eduard and I are doing the Mac version, and it is not the case that all use Windows.
I WILL NEVER (yes, never, I would stop computing at all!!!!!) use Windows as
development platform.
: And so you simply got the wrong image, why do you think there is this BIG note about
the source code and the Linux version etc.? 
: We are working hard on the Mac side and you get the impression only Windows is
supported?

  I agree with the first writer.
  Ok, ok, mac version is also highly developed, but that doesn't change much
the original statement. I don't want to blame anyone either, but I also think
that povteam spends too much time and efforts on the windows (and the mac)
GUI. What I (and I think most of people) want is a good _raytracer_. A GUI
and an editor are not raytracers. They don't even benefit everyone (only
those using win95 or mac). All the work and resources put on the GUI means
absolutely nothing to those not using that GUI (and I don't know if the
wonderful GUI even helps or makes easier to make actual good-quality
raytracing).
  What does the GUI development actually give to the final images or the
source codes I get? Nothing. I want good images and an easy macro language
to make them. A GUI is an unessential point in all this (specially because
I _can't_ use the GUI at all!).
  There are lots of things to develop in the raytracer itself. Why to waste
time and resources on something unessential?
  Of course I can't complain about anything. Povray is free and made by
volunteers, who receive no money from their great efforts. They can do
whatever they want. They can even stop developing povray if they want to.
And I totally understand and agree with that.
  I just want to say, that it should be wiser to concentrate on the essential
things and save resources from unessential things which give nothing to the
actual raytracer.
  (This is absolutely paranoiac thinking, but I can't stop thinking that the
povhelp program is not supported anymore because all the efforts are put on
the windows GUI instead...)

-- 
                                                           - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

Rik Ling <rli### [at] pipcomcom> wrote:
: Have you considered (yikes!) Java?

  I think that Java is not an option nowadays, because:

  a) Java is slow. Someone should think that just a GUI for povray doesn't
need much speed, but usually they are using some pentium 150MHz. Not all
the people are using superfast machines. I usually use a sparcstation
which is about as fast as a 486 50MHz, and java is extremely slow here.
I can't even think of editing a 5000-lines long text in a java editor.
  b) Java compilers are not very usual (I mean compilers that make actual
machine-code, runnable binary data, like c-compilers) and usually java-coders
don't like them (it seems to break the principles of java).
  c) Java is hardly portable. This may sound crazy, but it's true. Usually
you need a web browser to run java (this adds slowness to the whole thing).
There are also appletviewers, but they don't differ much from the browsers.
Every browser has its own implementation of the java virtual machine, and
this implementation usually differs from other browsers.
  I once made a school work with a friend with java (a simple povray
modeller). We developed it in a sparcstation with an appletviewer and
netscape 3. It worked ok (although there were some minor problems with
the appletviewer, which we thought were bugs of it).
  Then we tested it with other browsers: With netscape 4 in the same
sparc it didn't work correctly. In win95 netscape 3 it didn't work
correctly (although you could make images). In win95 netscape 4 it didn't
work at all (the GUI showed, but it crashed and showed an error message).
It didn't work in MSIE either (only a gray square appeared).
  This isn't a unique case. I have seen other big applets too which don't
work in this sparc with netscape 3 or 4 or the appletviewer, and I have
been told they don't work in every windows browser either.
  This doesn't mean that it's not possible to make applets which work
everywhere. It means that it's not _easy_. With nowaday browsers, java
definitely is not "write once, run everywhere", but "write once, test
everywhere, fix many times".

  Just my opinion.

-- 
                                                           - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote in message <35efc03b.0@news.povray.org>...
>Rik Ling <rli### [at] pipcomcom> wrote:
>: Have you considered (yikes!) Java?
>
>  I think that Java is not an option nowadays, because:
>
>  a) Java is slow.
[snip]
That may be so, under the the circumstances you describe. But the original
poster seriously considers using Tcl/Tk and that is an interpreted language,
not like Java, where precompiled bytecode is running through a virtual
machine...

>  c) Java is hardly portable.

I agree that Java has portability-problems, but an application like the GUI
for POV-Ray would be doable.

>This may sound crazy, but it's true. Usually
>you need a web browser to run java (this adds slowness to the whole thing).
[snip]

And this is where you go wrong. You are speaking about Java applets. But a
GUI for POV-Ray would not be realized as an applet but as a Java
application. This runs directly in the Java virtual machine, not in a
browser. So you only need to get a compatible virtual machine.
My best guess there would be either the Microsoft VM of IE4.0 or Sun's VMs
which exist for many platforms. And if need be you could install just the VM
you need...

Now, back to topic:
I personally don't see a reason for a portable UI at all, and the idea of
having a Tcl/Tk or Java GUI running together with a C raytracer is not what
I am looking for for christmas...

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

On 4 Sep 1998 06:02:16 -0500, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] assaricctutfi> wrote:
>  Ok, ok, mac version is also highly developed, but that doesn't change much
>the original statement. I don't want to blame anyone either, but I also think
>that povteam spends too much time and efforts on the windows (and the mac)
>GUI.

Have you considered the possibility that only one or two members of the POV-Team
are actually working on the Windows port at any given time?  Maybe they're just
more prolific or higher profile.  After all, the two members of the POV-Team who
post here regularly are the Windows guy and one of the Mac guys, so of course 
their focus is on the Windows and Mac ports.  That doesn't mean nothing's 
getting done on the other ports - just look at the list of things that were 
fixed in the renderer in 3.1b6.  That's in _ALL_ ports.  There's just not much 
to be done with the interface in DOS, and the last anyone knew was that the 
team didn't have a Unix guy, so now that they have one (assuming they do, of 
course) I'm sure he's working on important porting issues.

I don't have any more inside information than the rest of you do.  I'm just 
willing to cut the Team a little more slack than some of the people here.

Post a reply to this message

On 04 Sep 1998 10:22:48 +0900, Roland Mas <mas### [at] acratrcojp> wrote:
> - A Tk interface. I don't know Tk yet, but I'll have to learn it
>anyway for a professionnal job, and from what I read it seems quite
>easy and quite portable. The underlying language would be either
>Python or Tcl, which I also plan to learn in the next few weeks. My
>proposed plan would be to extend these languages with C-written
>functions that I would get from POV-Ray.

If you make a Tk interface, please keep in mind that some of us might
want to use it with Perl/Tk.  Also, keep in mind that the new POVLEGAL
specifically forbids making new interfaces, so you won't be able to
distribute your changes without the blessing of the POV-Team.

Post a reply to this message