 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greetings,
As we all know the language used by POV-Ray is not only easy to use
but offers a lot of flexibility. There are often many ways to describe
an object or attribute of an object because of the "looseness" of
it's language.
Now many in the past have argued that it is too primitive for thier
needs and suggest that it become more of an official programming
language. They also suggest it should become more object oriented
or stricter rules should be applied to the language from what it is
now. Some say the syntax is too loose for all practical purposes.
Some even suggest it should move to a binary format that needs to
be compiled before being parsed (heaven forbid).
I say the one thing that attracted me to POV-Ray was the fact that
it's text based input was both easy to learn, was intuitive from the
beginning, and I never had to learn a programmers language to use
the program. I like the way that you can describe something in several
ways to achieve the same results. In my opinion this loose and very
flexible language makes it a very powerful program to use.
What I do worry about though is the influence that the people who seek
a more programmer like language may have for the mass of people that have
no programming background but still enjoy using the program. It might
be good for them in some circumstances but would it be good for everyone
is not so cut and dried as it were.
So the questions I have are really for the non-programmer types out there.
Would you have difficulty re-learning POV-Ray if it's language format
changed ?
Would you resent it or maybe even quit using the program completely ?
P.S. I am not suggesting that the POV-Team is even considering changing
the language at this time. I am mearly trying to find out what the
mainstream users of the program think about this and if they really
like the way the syntax is currently structured.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't think I could explain the reason why pov-script is my favorite choice so
easily to begin with and that's why I've had little trouble continuing to use it
all this time. I used Polyray before ever seeing POV-Ray and I was just getting
used to using that, the text interfacing I mean. First time I had ever
"raytraced" via text was in Polyray.
And since the time I started in on POV-Ray I have tried BMRT and didn't even
begin to get accustomed to it. I think it should be kept in mind that POV has
changed considerably over the years and hasn't always been like it is now, yet
it still has a similar "language" over all that time.
Got to admit that Nathan's #$ keyword (or syntax) as a shortcut to #declare is
kind of what I think of when I hear this programmer versus 3D graphics
enthusiast debate or differing opinions.
The most certain fact to me is the understandability of the code(?). Less
meaningful keywords and syntax is less easy to follow obviously. Now I'm not
saying I always like writing out a whole bunch more than I might otherwise be
doing if the language were condensed further (I often use cryptic definition
names for things) but I always see this programming discussion to be about
losing sight of a followable format. Like if every current keyword were a
letter or two instead and the syntax glued together like pieces in other
programming languages (assuming I know anything about what I'm saying) then I'd
get lost without some serious roadmap mentality to get me through it okay.
That said, I know how some people can't see what the heck POV-Ray is at all with
it's curly braces and hash marks and parenthesis so they might shy away from
trying to learn it, that's what makes it a text interface anyhow. You almost
have to think of the visual appearance of a ASCII character-only language in
order to sort the parts out. That is of course the usual programming technique
too I suppose, to make what's typed a visual queue.
I'm rambling on here so to sum up I'm only trying to say POV-Ray has it's niche
with the form it is written in same as any other such language. It has always
seemed very straight-forward to me though. I just hope it doesn't ever become a
thing where the newcomer or accustomed user is stumbling through while building
a scene. Common sense, huh?
Bob
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:38C7685C.5A4F3A68@pacbell.net...
|
|
| Greetings,
|
| As we all know the language used by POV-Ray is not only easy to use
| but offers a lot of flexibility. There are often many ways to describe
| an object or attribute of an object because of the "looseness" of
| it's language.
|
| Now many in the past have argued that it is too primitive for thier
| needs and suggest that it become more of an official programming
| language. They also suggest it should become more object oriented
| or stricter rules should be applied to the language from what it is
| now. Some say the syntax is too loose for all practical purposes.
| Some even suggest it should move to a binary format that needs to
| be compiled before being parsed (heaven forbid).
|
| I say the one thing that attracted me to POV-Ray was the fact that
| it's text based input was both easy to learn, was intuitive from the
| beginning, and I never had to learn a programmers language to use
| the program. I like the way that you can describe something in several
| ways to achieve the same results. In my opinion this loose and very
| flexible language makes it a very powerful program to use.
|
| What I do worry about though is the influence that the people who seek
| a more programmer like language may have for the mass of people that have
| no programming background but still enjoy using the program. It might
| be good for them in some circumstances but would it be good for everyone
| is not so cut and dried as it were.
|
|
| So the questions I have are really for the non-programmer types out there.
|
| Would you have difficulty re-learning POV-Ray if it's language format
| changed ?
|
| Would you resent it or maybe even quit using the program completely ?
|
|
|
| P.S. I am not suggesting that the POV-Team is even considering changing
| the language at this time. I am mearly trying to find out what the
| mainstream users of the program think about this and if they really
| like the way the syntax is currently structured.
|
|
| --
| Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
| http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some aspects of the language which relate purely to programming could be
changed or (probably better) extended without affecting those who don't
use them.
For a non-programmer or a programmer , macros, loops etc are a lot
harder in POV than the equivalents in most programming languages.
Surely replacing
#declare I=1; #while(I<=5) ... #declare I=I+1;#end
with either
for I = 1 to 5 {...}
ala Basic, or even for a non-programmer,
for( I=1; I <= 5; I=I+1){...}
would make life easier for all.
PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"PoD" <pod### [at] globalfreewaycomau> wrote in message
news:38C7811B.96924C63@globalfreeway.com.au...
| for I = 1 to 5 {...}
This one isn't feasible since the increment isn't changeable, as written anyhow.
The second example was. This is what makes me wonder about the merging of
syntax into smaller parts, would it always have the same functionality as before
kind of question.
But I see your point, there could be good ways to rewrite things if done well.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello,
As a programmer I have to say that the flexibility of PoV-Script is one
thing I like most in PoV. As Ken already mentioned, mostly you can write
your scene intuitively, without to be bound to strict and exact rules
for a description of an object an object or attribute of an object. This
is great! In (other) programming languages (Yes I think PoV-Script is
already a kind of programming language, however a very flexible) you are
often pressed use very strict, limited and exact rules to archive the
wanted effect, which in turn you sometimes doesn't know exactly enough
to code them without looking into any help. Another problem will be the
'dirty' programming for people without programming-knowledge. The
example given by PoD is one of them:
PoD wrote:
>
> Some aspects of the language which relate purely to programming could be
> changed or (probably better) extended without affecting those who don't
> use them.
>
> For a non-programmer or a programmer , macros, loops etc are a lot
> harder in POV than the equivalents in most programming languages.
>
> Surely replacing
> #declare I=1; #while(I<=5) ... #declare I=I+1;#end
> with either
> for I = 1 to 5 {...}
> ala Basic, or even for a non-programmer,
> for( I=1; I <= 5; I=I+1){...}
> would make life easier for all.
No I think not that this would make life easier for all. Problem one:
what will be the value of the variables outside the for-loop? Problem
two: What if you want to increment the variable in non deterministic
steps, e.g. different steps width in each loop or you didn't want to
increment in each loop. Than you will need the old while-construct, and
why blowing up Pov-Script with higly specialised commands if you already
have flexibler and more general commends for them? As a more skilled
programmer you can always write macros for specialised problems. Problem
three: What if somebody changes the variable explicitly inside the
loop-body. I think these problems complicates the life of PoV-people
without programming-knowledge, especially if some of these persons want
to understand code from other people with more skilled
programming-knowledge (especially if those people used 'dirty' and
mostly undocumented programming constructs).
Yours,
Axel Baune
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:38C7685C.5A4F3A68@pacbell.net...
>
<snip>
> So the questions I have are really for the non-programmer types out there.
>
> Would you have difficulty re-learning POV-Ray if it's language format
> changed ?
Sure I would if it is not a logic evolution or development, based on the
current POV language. Through POV I have learned to recognize and understand
more other languages. Since I am not a programmer, POV was the first thing I
coded. Although the learning process is a little harder, it is straight
forward and rewarding. I wouldn't change it.
It has become very familiar to me and, besides, prompted a huge amount of
changes in the way I looked at digital arts.
Marjorie Graterol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
PoD <pod### [at] globalfreewaycomau> wrote:
: for( I=1; I <= 5; I=I+1){...}
I think that a more povray-type syntax would be:
#for(I=1; I<=5; I++)
...
#end
Of course this can be done with a #while-loop, but this kind of shortcut
just makes life easier.
I would also like to see this:
#do
...
#until(whatever)
I have at least once needed this kind of feature. With the regular #while
loop I had to write the body of the loop twice.
And this I have suggested before:
#declare A += B;
#declare A -= B;
#declare A *= B;
#declare A /= B;
etc...
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> I think that a more povray-type syntax would be:
>
> #for(I=1; I<=5; I++)
> ...
> #end
>
> Of course this can be done with a #while-loop, but this kind of shortcut
> just makes life easier.
> I would also like to see this:
>
> #do
> ...
> #until(whatever)
>
> I have at least once needed this kind of feature. With the regular #while
> loop I had to write the body of the loop twice.
>
> And this I have suggested before:
>
> #declare A += B;
> #declare A -= B;
> #declare A *= B;
> #declare A /= B;
> etc...
>
I believe that if these are *additions* to the language nobody would
object.
I'd like to see them.
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The only change I have considered wanting is a trend towards objects oriented
programming, but all I really want is the ability to pull a value from an
object, such as the location of the camera so I could declare camera.location
instead of making the current method
#declare CamLoc = <0,0,-4>;
camera { location CamLoc ... }
#declare Target = CamLoc;
but I think this would make it overly complicated.
Josh
Ken wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As we all know the language used by POV-Ray is not only easy to use
> but offers a lot of flexibility. There are often many ways to describe
> an object or attribute of an object because of the "looseness" of
> it's language.
>
> Now many in the past have argued that it is too primitive for thier
> needs and suggest that it become more of an official programming
> language. They also suggest it should become more object oriented
> or stricter rules should be applied to the language from what it is
> now. Some say the syntax is too loose for all practical purposes.
> Some even suggest it should move to a binary format that needs to
> be compiled before being parsed (heaven forbid).
>
> I say the one thing that attracted me to POV-Ray was the fact that
> it's text based input was both easy to learn, was intuitive from the
> beginning, and I never had to learn a programmers language to use
> the program. I like the way that you can describe something in several
> ways to achieve the same results. In my opinion this loose and very
> flexible language makes it a very powerful program to use.
>
> What I do worry about though is the influence that the people who seek
> a more programmer like language may have for the mass of people that have
> no programming background but still enjoy using the program. It might
> be good for them in some circumstances but would it be good for everyone
> is not so cut and dried as it were.
>
> So the questions I have are really for the non-programmer types out there.
>
> Would you have difficulty re-learning POV-Ray if it's language format
> changed ?
>
> Would you resent it or maybe even quit using the program completely ?
>
> P.S. I am not suggesting that the POV-Team is even considering changing
> the language at this time. I am mearly trying to find out what the
> mainstream users of the program think about this and if they really
> like the way the syntax is currently structured.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>#declare A += B;
>#declare A -= B;
What does it mean?
In general I like the language the way it is now, maybe make it more
consistent at some places (shadowless & no_shadow). The only thing that
worries me sometimes is the amount of keywords. How many will be there in
10 years?
My worst POV-nightmare is a scene file that looks like Warp's sig.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
