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

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
: 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.?

  I think that someone has made a C++ library (using full object-orientedness)
for reading and creating povray objects and files.
  IIRC it could even read povray 3.0 files.

  Try searching the povray links section (if no-one gives an URL here before
that).

-- 
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

Alessandro Coppo wrote:

> 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).

There are some pov users that are programming idiots.  I got A's in high school
BASIC and college FORTRAN classes (I'm 35) but am utterly  OO-illiterate,
despite having spent a few hundred on Java and C books.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> "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.?


Somewhat.  I have a particle system in c++, that when compiled outputs the
system in POV readable format.  IT's all OO.  But I've found that that's
only useful when it's really time intensive.  If there was an existing code
base (ie, all the primitives and such already spelt out), but as it is, it's
not useful in general.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
> : Say you're doing a 400 x 300. That's 1200 pixels.
> : First you shoot pixels AS IF it were a 40 x 30, where you choose by some
> : algorithm 1 pixel out of every block of 100.
> : Report the color of these pixels to the viewer as if it were ONLY a 40 x 30.
> : Now assume it's a 160  x 120,  shoot 3 pixels out of every block of ....... and
> : so on......
> 
>   How do you calculate antialiasing here?

Since the 'preview' image is not a final product, skip anti-aliasing and
save lots of computation.

				++Eric
-- 
Eric Fielding

Eri### [at] sierrasjplnasagov  -or- Eri### [at] jplnasagov

MS 300-233                             direct phone: +1 (818) 354-9305
Jet Propulsion Lab                              fax: +1 (818) 354-9476
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, CA   91109

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
: but am utterly  OO-illiterate,
: despite having spent a few hundred on Java and C books.

  Knowing an OO-language doesn't mean you know how to make OO-programs.
It's a very common mistake to think otherwise.

  An object-oriented programming language can't force you to make
object-oriented programs. The reason is that the object-oriented design of
a program starts before you write even the first line of code.

  To learn object-oriented programming you have to read books about
object-oriented programming, not books about some programming language.

-- 
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 wrote:

>   To learn object-oriented programming you have to read books about
> object-oriented programming, not books about some programming language.

So if POV-Ray incorporates OO style syntax I am going to have to go
out and buy books to learn how to use it ? This does not sound very
encouraging !

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message