"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:

> I mean: as it is now, POV-SDL has a C-like syntax.  I think it would be a
> very bad idea to change the POV-SDL into a BASIC-like syntax, or a
> Python-like syntax (whatever you make, DON'T make it whitespace-sensitive!
> PLEASE! :))

I like curly brackets over square brackets too, and agree about whitespace.
Charles

PS Woohoo! I haven't been able to log onto the web-interface in some time.
I can actually chime in!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:38:18 +0100, St. wrote:

>     "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
> 
>      Just a thought Chris.

I wasn't the only one who had that thought, it seems.  :-)

Seriously, though, I agree with this - if there's functionality to add to 
SDL I'm all for that, but changing the format of things like object 
definitions is going to require people relearn the language - if that's 
going to happen, there ought to be a very good reason for doing so other 
than "we wanted a different syntax".

Taking what people are used to and changing it even *with* good reason 
tends to be met with a lot of resistance.  (As I work for Novell, just 
ask anyone who has used NetWare forever how they like running Open 
Enterprise Server on Linux for a prime example of the resistance to 
change phenomenon).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 19 Sep 2007 15:50:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Taking what people are used to and changing it even *with* good reason 
>tends to be met with a lot of resistance.  (As I work for Novell, just 
>ask anyone who has used NetWare forever how they like running Open 
>Enterprise Server on Linux for a prime example of the resistance to 
>change phenomenon).

That's one of the major reasons I'm still running NetWare 6.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:04:39 -0400, Kyle wrote:

> On 19 Sep 2007 15:50:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Taking what people are used to and changing it even *with* good reason
>>tends to be met with a lot of resistance.  (As I work for Novell, just
>>ask anyone who has used NetWare forever how they like running Open
>>Enterprise Server on Linux for a prime example of the resistance to
>>change phenomenon).
> 
> That's one of the major reasons I'm still running NetWare 6.

Even evidence in here. :-)

Still got a 6.5 server running under VMware, but OES2 is looking much 
better than OES1 <g>.  Heck, I started with 2.15....But that's probably a 
povray.off-topic discussion. ;-)

(And now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

David Buck wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Discussion is welcome.
> 
Something that I think has not been mentioned in this discussion so far 
(unless I accidentally skipped it):
One of the interesting things of POV is that it is a great environment 
to learn maths. Often you want to position two objects in such a way 
that they touch each other or such that the combined surface is 
continuous or... You can do this by trial and error, but soon you'll end 
up motivated to learn how to solve a particular second order equation or 
some equation involving sin() or tan().
Whatever direction a new SDL is going to take, it would be great if the 
simplest subset could (still) be used in a high school math class. The 
only thing we then need is someone to write something like 'Mindstorms 
for high school students'.

Post a reply to this message

"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:
> I mean: as it is now, POV-SDL has a C-like syntax.  I think it would be a
> very bad idea to change the POV-SDL into a BASIC-like syntax, or a
> Python-like syntax

hey, how about pretty much no syntax at all?

(union (plane y (pigment (checker 0 1)))
         (sphere 0 1
                 (texture (pigment (rgb x))
                          (finish (phong 0.8 30)))))
(light-source white (* 5 #(-1 1 -1)))
(camera (z -3) 0)

well, except for Lots of Irritating Silly Parentheses, that is... :)

Post a reply to this message

Ger nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/09/19 13:16:
> Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> 
> If vars are defined as float then why the need to define them as such? On
> the other hand, integers are much faster so why not use both?
>
Integer operations are not faster than floating point ones, this is due to the 
arithmetic coprocessor that is integrated in all processors since the advent of 
the Pentium. In fact, the oposite is almost always thrue for any multiplication, 
division and modulo. It was even the case for the 286, 386 and 486 whenever you 
also had an arithmetic coprocessor installed on your machine.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't cry because it is over, smile because it happened.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/09/19 17:10:
> "Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:
>> I mean: as it is now, POV-SDL has a C-like syntax.  I think it would be a
>> very bad idea to change the POV-SDL into a BASIC-like syntax, or a
>> Python-like syntax
> 
> hey, how about pretty much no syntax at all?
> 
> (union (plane y (pigment (checker 0 1)))
>          (sphere 0 1
>                  (texture (pigment (rgb x))
>                           (finish (phong 0.8 30)))))
> (light-source white (* 5 #(-1 1 -1)))
> (camera (z -3) 0)
> 
> well, except for Lots of Irritating Silly Parentheses, that is... :)
> 
> 
> 
Makes me think of Lisp! TONS of parenteses ;-)

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those
entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it
into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Seriously, though, I agree with this - if there's functionality to add to 
> SDL I'm all for that, but changing the format of things like object 
> definitions is going to require people relearn the language - if that's 
> going to happen, there ought to be a very good reason for doing so other 
> than "we wanted a different syntax".

I don't think it is necessary to change object definitions. That's not to
say there may not be another means to create them programmatically if you
happen to be generating a scene from an algorithm, but the basic definition
syntax for objects, cameras, etc, could reasonably stay the same.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, SDL is really two things: a
scene description language and a scripting language. It started with the
pure SDL and the scripting was added later. Therefore it's not unreasonable
 to suggest that scripting can be changed without changing the core object
syntax.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

>> Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>>
>> If vars are defined as float then why the need to define them as such? On
>> the other hand, integers are much faster so why not use both?
>>

actually, I didn't

Post a reply to this message