 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38CBE442.C4C2F034@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povray org
wrote:
> After all POV-Ray is about making pretty pictures and is not a play
> toy for programmers.
Actually, I think it *is* a play toy for programmers. Think about it:
written by unpaid people in their spare time as recreation, source code
freely available, all the patches that have been written...
It is also a play toy for 3D graphics amateurs, a math visualization
tool, a simple simulator(which could be made a much better simulator
with those "programming" additions you are so against), and many other
things.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38cbe304@news.povray.org>, Nieminen Juha
<war### [at] sarakerttunencstutfi> wrote:
> "classes will make CSDL too complicated", and so on and so on.
Actually, I just don't think they are needed. In the syntax I am working
on, there would be an "object" type, which could be a sphere, box,
cylinder, or whatever. This "object" could also have attached variables
and functions. Copies of this object would get copies of the variables
and access to the same functions, similar to inheritance, and you could
add overriding functions to the copies. You could get something close to
a class by using a "union" to hold the variables and functions. The main
difference is that actual objects are manipulated instead of types, a
separate "class" type doesn't seem necessary.
It is still object-oriented, but in a different way that makes Java and
C++ look more like "object-type oriented".
> Perhaps a set of C++-libraries to make easier to create pov-files would
> be good.
A set of C++ classes which are freely available would be very useful in
developing many utilities. I have a 3d vector class which I might
donate...but this doesn't fill the same purpose CSDL would.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm just wondering about this obsession. "For-loops in povray would just
>make the syntax more complicated", "+= operators would just save some
>characters", "do-until-loops are not needed since we have while-loops",
>"classes will make CSDL too complicated", and so on and so on.
That is *exactly* the kind of reaction I got when I suggested those things a
year ago. I don't care if other people don't like it. Don't like, don't use
it. I know I will. The one I would like a lot is
I++;
instead of... um, let me rephrase that... in addition to
I = I + 1;
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>It wouldn't be an extended C/C++/Java with additions for making scenes,
>it would be a new, cleanly designed language based on those languages,
>without all the "dirt" that POV-Script has accumulated over time, and
>designed with the purpose of describing scenes and developing plugins.
Oh, now I get it. I like it. I would also like to code with this new
language. I thought you were going to somehow write your POV scenes in a
pre-existing language. I was trying to figure out how you'd do that. It
would be something in the direction of MEL (Maya) or MAX-script (3DSM). I
like it, I like it. Hop to it!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> After all POV-Ray is about making pretty pictures and is
> not a play toy for programmers. Before firing off a heated response
> think about what I have said.
>
Actually, it's both :^)
PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <8EF5C9340seed7@204.213.191.228>, ing### [at] homenl (ingo)
wrote:
> If the script/program is not a binary but a human readable file, I see no
> more problems with it than with the POV language.
Maybe...
> >My idea is a program that in it's most basic form would take an input
> >CSDL file and some parameters, and output a POV file(or several POV
> >files).
>
> Although it's only output is a mesh, have you ever looked at Steve's
> Object Builder? http://www.carr.lib.md.us/~stevensl/
I remember seeing that web page...I don't like Perl though, at least not
for this. It seems even harder to read than POV-Script, and not designed
for the purpose of describing scenes. Even some of the "easy to read"
examples on the Perl web page look hard to understand. But Steve's
Object Builder does fill some of the same needs CSDL would.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> Actually, I think it *is* a play toy for programmers. Think about it...
>
Now I have to disagree with you. See for instance:
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2000-02-29/abandbld.jpg
And quoted from the povdoc:
1.1 Program Description
photo-realistic images using a rendering technique called ray-tracing. It
reads in a text file ...
My point is that there are people getting very good results in this
direction.
Regards, Alberto.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38cbf689@news.povray.org>, "TonyB"
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
> That is *exactly* the kind of reaction I got when I suggested those
> things a year ago. I don't care if other people don't like it. Don't
> like, don't use it. I know I will. The one I would like a lot is
>
> I++;
>
> instead of... um, let me rephrase that... in addition to
>
> I = I + 1;
I think the only way to do that and also allow prefix and postfix uses
of the ++ and -- operator would be to totally change the syntax of POV
variables. Otherwise, you would end up with ugly little inconsistancies
all over the place.
However, I think they would probably fit in quite well with CSDL...
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38CBCC8D.CA8FB7CB@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
wrote:
> See item two below but the rest is worthy of note as well
> 2) We will eventually write a separate utility or an optional feature
> in POV-Ray itself to translate (as much as possible) a version 1.0,
> 2.x or 3.0 scene into 3.1 scene and to possibly unroll loops, resolve
> conditionals and expand macros. This will allow you to create a much
> more easy-to-parse scene.
Yes, the CSDL translator would be very similar to this, although it
wouldn't use older versions of POV for input, but a new language. It
could probably be made to parse much faster than POV, because it would
be dedicated to one job(translation) and wouldn't have to support older
versions of the language, and would be designed from the start as a
programming language(instead of having those capabilities added on
later).
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38CBF99D.9183AE4E@usb.ve>, jac### [at] usbve wrote:
> > Actually, I think it *is* a play toy for programmers. Think about it...
> >
>
> Now I have to disagree with you.
> ...
> My point is that there are people getting very good results in this
> direction.
Note that I also said: "It is also a play toy for 3D graphics
amateurs..."
When I said "amateurs", I was referring to people who are working with
it in their free time. As in:
"amateur 1. one that has a marked fondness, liking or taste. 2. one that
engages in a particular pursuit, study or science as a pastime rather
than as a profession"
-- From Webster's 3rd unabridged
Also note that I said it had many other uses.
It *is* a play toy for programmers. That isn't the only thing it is, but
it is one of them, and perhaps the main thing it started out as.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
