In article <3db436a9$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> I "mastered" programming in high school and college learning BASIC and some
> FORTRAN.
> 
> I am too stupid to figure out C.

More likely you had some kind of block where you decided you couldn't 
learn it. It isn't that hard, though of course I'd never recommend it 
for a scene description language..


> Please don't make the SDL just a bastardized C. 

That wasn't very C-like. There were only a few things that were like C 
in that code: using {} braces to enclose code blocks (which POV already 
does, just not for control statements...if that was the problem, you 
couldn't read POV either), and the "+=" operator, which seems pretty 
intuitive to me. And finally, the "varName = value" syntax for assigning 
to variables...is that so hard to understand? Were you really unable to 
figure out what that code did?


> Don't make it eclectic. 

If anything, the existing language is extremely "eclectic", borrowing 
bits and pieces from C, Pascal, and other languages. I don't think the 
word means what you think it means.


> As klunky as it is, the current SDL is intuitive.

In some ways, in others it is horribly nonintuitive. (quick: you can 
declare textures, finishes, pigments, objects, and functions. Can you 
declare transforms? Can you declare warps? How about patterns? You can 
also make a texture based off an existing one by using "texture 
{TEXTURE_IDENTIFIER MODIFIERS}", can you do the same with unions, blobs, 
or meshes? Is sky_sphere an object? Using shadowless in a light source 
turns off highlights...is that intuitive?)

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
>
> More likely you had some kind of block where you decided
> you couldn't  learn it.
>

Probably.

>
>> Please don't make the SDL just a bastardized C.
>
> That wasn't very C-like.

Well, the old dilemma where I cannot write   #declare a=x^2.5;   anymore.
Common practice (and sense?) conflicted with one of the more obtuse (using
nice words here) features of a few programming languages, so the whole SDL
gets rewritten.

>
>> Don't make it eclectic.
>

Isn't there a word that rhymes with this that means "of interest to, or
understandable by, only a small group of people"?

Post a reply to this message

In article <3db6d235$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> Well, the old dilemma where I cannot write   #declare a=x^2.5;   anymore.
> Common practice (and sense?) conflicted with one of the more obtuse (using
> nice words here) features of a few programming languages, so the whole SDL
> gets rewritten.

"def a = x^2.5;" is more obtuse than "#declare a = x^2.5;"?
It really sounds like you just dislike anything that is different or 
unfamiliar.


> >> Don't make it eclectic.
> Isn't there a word that rhymes with this that means "of interest to, or
> understandable by, only a small group of people"?

I think the word you are looking for is "esoteric", also "arcane", 
"mysterious", "inscrutible". And "POV-Script" would already qualify for 
that quite well...it is a pretty strange language, relatively unknown 
compared to most other languages, and eclectic in that it borrows bits 
and pieces from many other langauges. It also makes you learn a lot more 
than is necessary, and has many quirks and inconsistencies. Cleaning it 
up and making it easier to learn will be necessary to get it to a larger 
group of people.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
> In article <3db6d235$1@news.povray.org>,
>  "Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> Well, the old dilemma where I cannot write   #declare a=x^2.5;   anymore.
>
> "def a = x^2.5;" is more obtuse than "#declare a = x^2.5;"?
> It really sounds like you just dislike anything that is different or
> unfamiliar.
>

No, I mean that I now must type  #declare a=pow(x,2.5);

direct followups to povray.^

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> No, I mean that I now must type  #declare a=pow(x,2.5);

  So?

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message