 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I must say that the concept of rewriting POV 4.0
for/in/by/beneath/with/ontopof C++ causes the non-programmer in me to
tremble. What does this mean? Will the source code be rewritten more
efficiently in C++ or will one have to be a C++ afficiando in order to
understand the language?
I like the fact that POV 3.x is not too different from the BASIC I
learned as a teenager. I am trying to teach myself Java, and I think
Java stinks. Anti-intuitiveness and stupid descriptions of variables
and functions abound! I've also spent more time reading about the
"benefits" of object-oriented programming and encapsulation and
inheritance than I have actual Java coding, and I'm very unimpressed.
I'm continuing to learn in case there is some 3-D application in my
career someday, but it's not as fun as POV.
Is this the ultimate programmer's revenge? Kicking us non CS-er's out of
the POV community?
________________
Greg M. Johnson
"The program I just wrote is a patentable, new technology,"
said the CS to the Fellow of the Materials Research Society.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <37304A9B.4E78CBF8@geocities.com> , "Greg M. Johnson"
<gre### [at] geocities com> wrote:
> I must say that the concept of rewriting POV 4.0
> for/in/by/beneath/with/ontopof C++ causes the non-programmer in me to
> tremble. What does this mean? Will the source code be rewritten more
> efficiently in C++ or will one have to be a C++ afficiando in order to
> understand the language?
Don't worry, this is only an internal issue which has nothing to do with the
scene language. For users POV-Ray for won't be different to use than any
other version of POV-Ray.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>
> I must say that the concept of rewriting POV 4.0
> for/in/by/beneath/with/ontopof C++ causes the non-programmer in me to
> tremble. What does this mean? Will the source code be rewritten more
> efficiently in C++ or will one have to be a C++ afficiando in order to
> understand the language?
>
> I like the fact that POV 3.x is not too different from the BASIC I
> learned as a teenager. I am trying to teach myself Java, and I think
> Java stinks. Anti-intuitiveness and stupid descriptions of variables
> and functions abound! I've also spent more time reading about the
> "benefits" of object-oriented programming and encapsulation and
> inheritance than I have actual Java coding, and I'm very unimpressed.
> I'm continuing to learn in case there is some 3-D application in my
> career someday, but it's not as fun as POV.
>
> Is this the ultimate programmer's revenge? Kicking us non CS-er's out of
> the POV community?
>
I don't think that the implementation of povray 4.0 would change too
much in the syntax of the scripting language. I guess that some
approaches might be easier to implement using C++ than c (although I've
seen C code that worked around a lots of problems most elegant).
Actually I came to believe that the povray scripting language is very
similar to the C syntax and not too much with BASIC. At least commandos
like #include the {} brackets and many more things are typical for C
(and even C++).
I would say have no fear regarding a C++ implementation.
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 1999 09:41:48 -0400, Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>I must say that the concept of rewriting POV 4.0
>for/in/by/beneath/with/ontopof C++ causes the non-programmer in me to
>tremble. What does this mean? Will the source code be rewritten more
>efficiently in C++ or will one have to be a C++ afficiando in order to
>understand the language?
My understanding is that nobody has any plans to rewrite the scene
definition language, so unless you plan to add new features to the
POV program itself, this will not affect you. If you plan to add
new features, it will affect you, but not as much as you might think
because the underlying code is already very object-oriented.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
import java.colors.*
import java.geometry.shapes.*
import java.light_sources.*
import java.rays.traceable.*
public void status main init destroy sPhere {
java.Geometry.Objects.shapes.roundyOnes.convexOnes.sPhere()
new radius= Radius;
new finish= Finish;
Radius= 1;
public void status main init destroy fInish{
java.texture.finish.prettyOnes.Reflective()
this.Finish=that.fInish;
die;
}
public void status main init destroy lOcation{
java.space.Cartesian.coordinates.linear.Nearby()
this.Location.x=0;
this.Location.y=0;
this.Location.z=0;
die;
}
}
public void status main init destroy pLane{
java.Geometry.Objects.shapes.infiniteOnes.flatOnes.Plane()
this.Direction=up;
public void status main init destroy pIgment{
java.texture.pigment.complexOnes.cHecker()
this.Pigment=try {
this.color=pigment.Green;
catch e exception error void yourself on main street();
that.color=pigment Red;
die;
}
}
public void status main init destroy you all {
java.Devices.nonObjects.pIcturetaking.cAmera()
you get the point.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (3 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
*lol*
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> import java.colors.*
> import java.geometry.shapes.*
> import java.light_sources.*
> import java.rays.traceable.*
>
> public void status main init destroy sPhere {
> java.Geometry.Objects.shapes.roundyOnes.convexOnes.sPhere()
> new radius= Radius;
> new finish= Finish;
> Radius= 1;
>
> public void status main init destroy fInish{
> java.texture.finish.prettyOnes.Reflective()
> this.Finish=that.fInish;
> die;
> }
> public void status main init destroy lOcation{
> java.space.Cartesian.coordinates.linear.Nearby()
> this.Location.x=0;
> this.Location.y=0;
> this.Location.z=0;
> die;
> }
> }
>
> public void status main init destroy pLane{
> java.Geometry.Objects.shapes.infiniteOnes.flatOnes.Plane()
> this.Direction=up;
> public void status main init destroy pIgment{
> java.texture.pigment.complexOnes.cHecker()
> this.Pigment=try {
> this.color=pigment.Green;
> catch e exception error void yourself on main street();
> that.color=pigment Red;
> die;
> }
> }
>
> public void status main init destroy you all {
> java.Devices.nonObjects.pIcturetaking.cAmera()
>
>
> you get the point.
--
//Spider -- [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
And the meek'll inherit what they damn well please
Get ahead, go figure, go ahead and pull the trigger
Everything under the gun
--"Sisters Of Mercy" -- "Under The Gun"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
