Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit> wrote:
: Well, not EVEN REMOTELY comparable to the power of Perl! Just an example: I
: have seen an XML parser in Perl which was written in just 30 lines...

  So the power of a language is measured by the number of lines it takes
to do something.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:

> POV already contains many features usually associated with
> modellers, but implementing renderer-specific features should always have higher
> priority.

Since I've been sort of an ornery troublemaker, here, let me affirm the wisdom of that
statement.  Yes, when it comes to investing POV-Team manhours into, say a new GUI
modeller's interface, or new higher-tech radiosity features,  then render-specific
features should have a higher priority.

Is is only when this "render-not-modeller" philosophy is applied to art criticism or
the
cool object-specific features of pov that I object.  Trace functions, isosurfaces,
#write, object patterns, and the like have very little to do with rendering, and a
purist application of "r-not-m" would probably poo-poo at these features.

Perhaps, however, that's part of the reason we end up with patches.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:43:10 +0200, Alessandro Coppo wrote:
>
>Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:39cf092b@news.povray.org...
>>   Isn't povray scripting language already something like that?
>
>Well, not EVEN REMOTELY comparable to the power of Perl! Just an example: I
>have seen an XML parser in Perl which was written in just 30 lines...

I've seen a POV program that makes a PNG of a reflective sphere on a checkered 
plane in just one line.  Let's see you do that with Perl.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.
Proudly not helping RIAA and SDMI steal my rights -- 
  http://www.eff.org/Misc/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/HTML/effect13.08.html

Post a reply to this message

Yann Ramin wrote:

> "All cats die.  Socrates is dead.  Therefore Socrates is a cat."
>         - The Logician
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

	Nonsense. WAS a cat. 

-- 
I have never had any plans to get out of this world alive.
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 61

Post a reply to this message

Yann Ramin wrote:
> 
> Why not support a Perl based scene building language?  Maybe a filter which
> spits out POV from Perl code... :)

	Why not write the bindings to Perl? I don't know if the source supports
that but it wouldn't hurt to take a look. While Perl is on my "to learn"
list, it is not on most people's list. 

-- 
Matt Giwer, EE, courtesy of the US Civil Service
Commission.
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 76

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Yann Ramin <atr### [at] atrustrivalieeuorg> wrote:
> : Why not support a Perl based scene building language?
> 
>   Isn't povray scripting language already something like that?

	I have always thought it is like an elephant viewed by seven blind men. 

-- 
http://www.google.com can't find anything similar to
http://www.giwersworld.org 
good luck to them. 
	--  The Iron Webmatster, 109

Post a reply to this message

Alessandro Coppo wrote:
> 
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:39cf092b@news.povray.org...
> >   Isn't povray scripting language already something like that?

> Well, not EVEN REMOTELY comparable to the power of Perl! Just an example: I
> have seen an XML parser in Perl which was written in just 30 lines...

	Perl has had how many people working on it for how many years in how
many applications? 

	Without sarcasm intended just what benefit would it be given the very
straightforward nature of it in the first place? 

	If really looking for Perl one of the big guys, Sun I think, I posted
it in off-topic, released their proprietary 3D language about a month
ago. I found a reference to a group forming to create Perl bindings for
it. 

-- 
Gun control: The principle that criminals will not have guns
if having guns is a crime. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 107

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:39d1d49a@news.povray.org...
>   So the power of a language is measured by the number of lines it takes
> to do something.

Well, if lines of codes do not count, then do switch to assembler. You will
have the pleasure of writing from 10 to 20 lines for each C/C++ line....

I thought it would be obvious, but apparently it is not, so I spell out the
whole story.

POVRay language defines objects and their property, plus how they are build
to together. No discussion about the objects and property side, but the
build together side could be vastly improved by another language. Think of
what could you do if instead of just #macro's you have a complete OO
language capable of creating scenes (i.e. assembling POV primitives). It is
exactly the same as saying that #macro's (who needs more programming power?)
are useless instead of being the gigantic improvement of POV 3.1.

You want an example? Consider what could you do if, instead of having fixed
values inside a color_map, you could create a color_map from arbitrary
code... each value the result of a function call... and this is just an
example.

Still, if the POVTeam does not want to do something, they just have to say
'NO' and nobody will complain.

P.S.:
    do you prefer a 30 lines XML perl parser or a 500KB C++ xml parser
(Xerces?). Which one is simpler to understand?

P.P.S:
    I want to start a flame war. Add to POVRay 4 the capability of using XML
files as language input.

Bye...

Post a reply to this message

So what makes a language powerful is not the number of lines but how
easy and intuitive is to make something.

  If I want a more "powerful" language, what stops me from using whatever
language I want to generate the povray output?

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:39d47a94@news.povray.org...
>   So what makes a language powerful is not the number of lines but how
> easy and intuitive is to make something.
>
>   If I want a more "powerful" language, what stops me from using whatever
> language I want to generate the povray output?
>

Interesting idea - has anyone ever written an alternative scene language for
POV (e.g. OOP) that, when run, outputs a translation to normal pov scene
lang.?

Post a reply to this message