"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3c960fd3@news.povray.org...
> > Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone
> will
> > think you meant it....
>
> I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't
understand
> but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe he
> is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried to
> make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.

Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
*too* much trouble :-)

Corey

> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3c9678b0$1@news.povray.org...
> Could someone PLEASE port povray to GW-BASIC?
>
> If you want to download that funky dos program on-line:
> http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/gwbasic.zip

10 CLS
20 COOL!
30  I havn't seen that program is a long time.
40 That was the first program I learned to program in.
50 I'll definetly have to download it and play.
60
70 Thanks
80 Corey
90 END

> I'll remove the thing in about a week. Download it and port it and you'll
> get famous.
>
>
> --
> Apache
> http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
> apa### [at] yahoocom
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Heh. "*Too* much trouble"? As in, hmm, maybe like FLAME WAR kind of trouble?
Nah. @@:-)
"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote in message
news:3c969572@news.povray.org...
>
> "Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
> news:3c960fd3@news.povray.org...
> > > Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance
anyone
> > will
> > > think you meant it....
> >
> > I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't
> understand
> > but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe
he
> > is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried
to
> > make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.
>
> Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
> groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
> smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
> *too* much trouble :-)
>
> Corey
>
> > Regards,
> > Hugo
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
> groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
> smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
> *too* much trouble :-)

Ohhh... ;o)  Now I can laugh about it.. Well, mr. Corey, heheh.. I just
think you mixed some strange ideas with some interesting ones, and I saw no
reason why you would try to pull off all that as a joke..

Hrrrmm........ :o)
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3c964780@news.povray.org...
>   It's just that I really don't understand what is the idea behind making
> the POV-Ray parser more limited and harder to use. I don't see any
advantage
> in this.
>   I don't understand why some people seem to think that versatility is a
> bad thing, when it isn't.
>   I use the POV-Ray features rather extensively, and it would deprive me
of
> many great tools if they were taken away all of a sudden.
>   It would be different if the extra features were an overburden (eg. they
> would make rendering slower), but they aren't.

This is how I feel about UI design.  Some people argue that more options in
a UI make it less intuitive and harder to use.  Personally, I like having
options.  Yes, I actually _do_ use the File menu, the little square with the
'x', and even the control menu (what are they calling that these days?), not
to mention Task Manager, all to close programs!  No, I do _not_ feel less
efficient for having those options available!

It's the same with the language syntax.  There's nothing wrong with having a
variety of ways to accomplish things.  POV does not have to be RISC to be
effective.

...Chambers


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 2/9/2002

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> > I don't recall anyone seriously recommending this. Well, except for that
> > one person who wanted to turn everything into XML...
> 
>   At least it would be more versatile with XML... ;)

I want it in ASN.1 !
and all decoding rules MUST be supported... 
you just indicate the file format with a switch in the command line...

Post a reply to this message

"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote
> That is just plain wrong. There are very simple languages with many
> keywords, and extremely complex ones with very few (counting symbols as
> keywords...there are languages that rely on symbols alone).

I second that.

Probably, the best example ever existed is Tcl vs. Perl. These two languages
have not only comparable number of keywords, they even share some keywords,
and yet there exists *vast* difference in complexity. While the former is
very simple (by its underlying principles, with its strings; much like LISP
with its 'pairs'), the latter is considered a 'write-only' language even by
its die-hard adepts. Please note: I'm telling *nothing* about these
languages' powers :-) Follow-ups to povray.flame-wars.

Post a reply to this message

"Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] rucom> wrote in message
news:3c972f84$1@news.povray.org...

> Probably, the best example ever existed is Tcl vs. Perl. These two languages
> have not only comparable number of keywords, they even share some keywords,
> and yet there exists *vast* difference in complexity. While the former is
> very simple (by its underlying principles, with its strings; much like LISP
> with its 'pairs'), the latter is considered a 'write-only' language even by
> its die-hard adepts. Please note: I'm telling *nothing* about these
> languages' powers :-) Follow-ups to povray.flame-wars.
>

I don't know anything about TCL, but IMHO the problem with Perl seems to often
stem from wilfull obfustication on the part of its users.

With good comments and nice var names, there's no reason it should be hard to
read - even RE can be made legible with the x modifier.

Post a reply to this message

Corey Woodworth wrote:
>
> 1. Everyone knows pov is slow as molasses. Lets just throw out the old
> deprecated C and convert the whole program to ASM. Everyone has Pentiums now
> anyway.

AHEM! Excuse me, but I happen to have a G3, not a Pentium, thank you.
However, if you like, feel free to download the source code and convert
it all to ASM.

> 2. With the speed afforded to us from improvement number one we can now
> throw out all the old hacks that give us refection and refraction in favor
> for a much better system: Forward ray tracing.

Better how? I think you need to do a little more math here; I seriously
doubt that any speed increase from converting to ASM (even if that were
practical) would offset what you suggest. Besides, POV-Ray still
wouldn't be fast enough; people would use the extra speed to make media
skies and absurdly high radiosity counts and complex isosurfaces and
stuff and still be able to finish rendering them before next month.

> 3. I don't know about you guys but this typing crap is hard.

I dunno, you seem to have managed pretty well to make this post.

> It's the new
> millennium and time for a GUI. Lets mimic a proven formula for productivity
> and intuitiveness.

You also seem to have as poor a grasp of computing history and UI design
as math; scripting has produced a great deal over the years and doesn't
lend itself to more graphical interfaces than the one we already have.

> Bryce!

*falls over laughing*

> 4. I like listening to music when I'm modeling, but it's such a pain to
> alt-tab back and forth between pov and winamp, why don't we make pov a
> winamp plug-in?

Oh. Poor baby. Considered making a playlist? Or hmm, I dunno, buying a
stereo or something that makes sense to the rest of the free world? WTF.

> 5. Speaking of winamp, isn't about time that pov's UI was skinnable?!

You're using Windows, so look into Windowshade (IIRC). There's not much
point in making POV-Ray individually skinnable.

> 6. CSG would be a lot easier if we had more primitives to work with. Cubes
> and spheres were great in preschool but the world is a complex place and we
> need complex shapes to describe it. Here are my suggestions for some new
> primitives: Dodecahedron, Buckyball, Leggo brick, Shreck

Well, having more polyhedra could be useful, though I doubt that they
would find nearly as much use as the existing primitives. They'd
probably end up only being used in their original forms as spaceship
fuel tanks or something.

Of course, you could add a bunch to an include file (if there isn't
already a file like that, which there probably is) and then include the
file in your scenes and use the included shapes as though they were part
of POV-Ray.. which is one reason why include files exist in the first place.

> 7. Its so much fun to return to the pov site after the beta expires to get
> the next one! It makes sure I visit regularly and I have the newest version.
> I think that the final version should expire as well, even if there aren't
> any new versions to download.

"..."

Um.. put the download page in your Favorites and subscribe to it, or
whatever that's called, so that IE will tell you when it changes? Or
really, if you like visiting the POV-Ray site THAT much, just check it
every morning?

(Please tell me you're joking with some of these.)

> 8. While I commend whoever wrote the tutorials, FAQs, and docs that come
> with pov we all know that nobody reads them.

Speak for yourself (and I half-suspect that you are).

> How about we convert them all
> to wav files? If pov becomes a winamp plugin then it would integrate nicely.

Sounds great. You'll pay for my DSL, right? On second thought, just make
it a T1.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

> (Please tell me you're joking with some of these.)

All of them Xplo....

Forgive me if I'm making an incorrect assumption, but irony doesn't work 
very well when the language it's being done in isn't your native 
tongue...

:)

Jamie.

Post a reply to this message