Jim Henderson wrote:
> pointless and useless, so why *do* you bother reading it?

The problem is once started, there are a few people here who will just add 
incorrect facts to it as the last posts.  in the past this came back to bite 
us.  And of courses, i never intended to have such a long discussion.

> comments do is distract from the actual discussion, which while you may
> think is pointless, there are some people who are actually interested in
> the ideas.  Maybe they won't ever be implemented in POV-Ray - but what
> does that really matter? 

As this server is for discussion of POV-Ray, yes.  Probably this whole 
discussion should have moved to p.off-topic a long time ago..

> Quashing discussion just because you don't see the value, or because you
> believe there is no value does nothing to encourage people to think and
> consider that they might actually have something to contribute of value. 

There is a difference between various POV-Team members not seeing any value 
in it and repeating a discussion for the 11th time.

> You want people to contribute things that are of value, right?  Well, if I
> read this discussion and think "Man, there's no way that I might
> contribute something that ______ would consider valuable, so why should
> I even suggest my idea", and then the idea is lost.

This group would be the wrong place for such discussion!  There is a huge 
difference between making a suggestion and being told that it has been 
rejected and just letting it go, or to continue arguing that all the 
developers of POV-Ray are obviously so stupid or uninterested in the 
development of POV-Ray that they just don't want to implement it (which 
some, not you, have done).

> 1.  You don't seem to be able to ignore threads you see no value in, and

Actually, I already ignore 99%+ of the threads on this server.

> 2.  You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Certainly not.  I have no need to argue with certain people because I know 
it is a waste of time.  However, I do have a problem when those people who 
make outright false or defamatory remarks about POV-Ray development or 
developers on this server.

> In fact, I found it somewhat amusing that in this thread you've gone on
> and on about the lack of portability, yet in another recent thread about
> launching POV-Ray in a cross-platform environment, you indicated that
> cross-platform support wasn't important to you personally. 

Apparently you are confusing me with someone else.

> say that I learned a lot not because Dan Farmer said to me "You're an
> idiot and don't know what you're talking about" but took the time to
> explain something to me that I didn't understand, even though it was
> probably the 300th time he had explained it to someone. 

Actually, back then there were far fewer people online and those who were 
online were almost all less "demanding" when it comes to what they expect 
from something they get for free.  Not to mention, a certain level of 
computer talent was needed to get online.  Today even for a free offer you 
get plenty of flames for truly random reasons or no reason at all from 
people who ten years ago could not have managed to get online even if they 
wanted to.

> And yes, those
> discussions were had a bit before you got your driver's license.

Which reminds me I should update my website, that picture is really old 
now... ;-)

> That's the nature of online support, my friend.  I've been doing online
> support for nearly 15 years now, and the nature of it is that you *will*
> have the same discussions over and over and over again, ad nauseum.  That
> is virtually *guaranteed*, and there is absolutely *nothing* you can do
> about it. 

Oh, hence I posted the link to an old discussion.  Interesting enough, 
absolutely nothing new came up in this one, but plenty was repeated from the 
last ones.  Obviously it is fine to discuss the same thing again and waste 
resources for that, but it is not necessary to read the old discussion. 
Personally I think such attitude is unacceptable.

> Yelling at people doesn't work.  Just let them bash it out in
> their own time - sometimes, people have to learn things for themselves,
> they have to make the mistakes that have already been made to have an
> epiphany.  Many people learn by *doing*, not by being told.  So let 'em.

A certain group of people her does not do that, unfortunately :-(

> Who knows, maybe the 15th time, someone will have an idea that nobody on
> the POV-Ray team has thought of.  I'm sure you'll be skeptical of that
> statement/idea, though.  You only want discussions that - how did you put
> it - "Contribute something of value".  But of course nobody but you knows
> what you consider valuable, so the only way to find it is to be subjected
> to your anger and frustration.  Quite frankly, that's a great way to drive
> users away from the POV-Ray project (again, BTDTGTTS).

As repeated numerous times now, and not only by me, there is exactly no 
interested in plug-ins, even if discussed a 20th time.  If that i the only 
suggestion people have that would be really sad.

> It's a shame that there are those who would rather not have open
> discussion about things relating to the software, regardless of the value
> they perceive in the discussions.

Again, you are completely missing the difference between repeating a 
discussion and discussing a new idea.  New ideas are really welcome!!!

Yet, that requires first getting an idea if something was not already 
suggested before.  Like in real-life, you would not walk into a meeting and 
repeat the ideas of last year.  All you would be told is to read memo xyz 
and if you would not do so and come again with the same idea the next week 
and the week after that, eventually you would have a hard time not being 
perceived as a total joke by your coworkers, friends or whoever you are 
meeting with.  Yet, for some strange reason a behavior that is considered 
totally inappropriate in real-life seems to be expected to be accepted by 
everybody when a small minority insists on it.

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
>> As it is certainly not said anywhere there that official POV-Ray 
>> development is discussed in povray.general, I can only conclude you 
>> are suffering from serious delusions and need urgent medical attention.
> 
> 
> http://tag.povray.org/povQandT/miscQandT.html#suggestingideas
> 
> Now, is it me, or does that actually say
> 
>   "I would like to suggest some new features for the program.
>    Who should I talk to?"
> 
>    This is best discussed on the POV-Ray news groups
>    (news.povray.org) in both the general news group
> 
> as described by our own illustrious Warp. :-)

So that says the POV-Ray development is discussed in povray.general??? Sure...

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:421143d5$1@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
> > except to repeatedly say STFU.
>
> Given that you have now spammed this thread with 1/4 of its total messages,
> that seems to be a lost cause :-(

And you've posted about 70% the number of messages he has.  Most of his posts
wouldn't have been made if it weren't for you replying saying the thread was
pointless.

The conversation has become, for the most part, a little trolling match between
the two of you - it's no wonder what these threads don't get anywhere.

You want posts to contribute something, well perhaps it's time you started
leading by example.  Stop feeding the trolls and get back to the actual topic,
and if you think the actual topic is pointless, don't reply - your time is
valuable and you shouldn't waste it on things you consider pointless.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:35:46 -0600, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> pointless and useless, so why *do* you bother reading it?
> 
> The problem is once started, there are a few people here who will just add
> incorrect facts to it as the last posts.  in the past this came back to
> bite us.  And of courses, i never intended to have such a long discussion.

Well, you've made yourself clear as to your views, so if it were me, I'd
just bow out and let the rest of the people having the discussion do their
thing. :-)

>> comments do is distract from the actual discussion, which while you may
>> think is pointless, there are some people who are actually interested in
>> the ideas.  Maybe they won't ever be implemented in POV-Ray - but what
>> does that really matter?
> 
> As this server is for discussion of POV-Ray, yes.  Probably this whole
> discussion should have moved to p.off-topic a long time ago..

Well, certainly as a member of the POV-Ray team, it's your prerogative to
suggest that.  But continuing to post STFU messages hasn't achieved your
goal, it's just intensified the debate/argument/disagreement.  Not really
what you were aiming for, was it? ;-)

>> Quashing discussion just because you don't see the value, or because
>> you believe there is no value does nothing to encourage people to think
>> and consider that they might actually have something to contribute of
>> value.
> 
> There is a difference between various POV-Team members not seeing any
> value in it and repeating a discussion for the 11th time.

Maybe for you because you've already seen the discussion.  It's like
discussion of VLV for me in my company's product. Someone has this idea
about every 6 months.  Now, I deal with *paying* customers, so I have
perhaps more of an incentive to not frustrate my user base, but in the
end, we're both looking for the same thing, right?  More users to use the
software and to enjoy it (or benefit from it, as the case may be).

>> You want people to contribute things that are of value, right?  Well,
>> if I read this discussion and think "Man, there's no way that I might
>> contribute something that ______ would consider valuable, so why should
>> I even suggest my idea", and then the idea is lost.
> 
> This group would be the wrong place for such discussion!  

Your FAQ would appear to suggest otherwise, unless I misread it.

> There is a
> huge difference between making a suggestion and being told that it has
> been rejected and just letting it go, or to continue arguing that all
> the developers of POV-Ray are obviously so stupid or uninterested in the
> development of POV-Ray that they just don't want to implement it (which
> some, not you, have done).

I don't think anyone intended to call the developers stupid - but I'd have
to let those in the discussion speak for themselves.  I do think, however,
that even if the benefit of the discussion doesn't seem particularly valid
at the time, such discussion can well spark a thought about development in
a totally unrelated area.  I've seen that literally thousands of times in
my years of doing online support.  It's quite amazing where a tangent can
take you, even when the original discussion had nothing to do with where
you ended up.

>> 1.  You don't seem to be able to ignore threads you see no value in,
>> and
> 
> Actually, I already ignore 99%+ of the threads on this server.

Might I respectfully suggest that this should be another one, then?

>> 2.  You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
> 
> Certainly not.  I have no need to argue with certain people because I
> know it is a waste of time.  However, I do have a problem when those
> people who make outright false or defamatory remarks about POV-Ray
> development or developers on this server.

Well, certainly feeding the discussion and providing more ammunition
(whether valid or not - IM(perhaps NSH)O you don't deserve it, and I think
there is very likely a huge cultural difference here as well that's not
helping things.

>> In fact, I found it somewhat amusing that in this thread you've gone on
>> and on about the lack of portability, yet in another recent thread
>> about launching POV-Ray in a cross-platform environment, you indicated
>> that cross-platform support wasn't important to you personally.
> 
> Apparently you are confusing me with someone else.

Quite possibly - I was recalling a discussion where someone said something
about wanting to launch POV-Ray from a cross-platform modeler they were
developing, and I recall something being said about the lack of a
command-line in the Mac and that there were other methods to accomplish
the task on the Mac platform.  Not being a Mac developer, I've no idea
about those methods myself, just was recalling the discussion.  If it
wasn't you, my most humble apologies for the mistake.

>> say that I learned a lot not because Dan Farmer said to me "You're an
>> idiot and don't know what you're talking about" but took the time to
>> explain something to me that I didn't understand, even though it was
>> probably the 300th time he had explained it to someone.
> 
> Actually, back then there were far fewer people online and those who
> were online were almost all less "demanding" when it comes to what they
> expect from something they get for free.  

Actually, there were fewer people, but the amount of "demanding" hasn't
really changed that much, particularly with things that the source is
available for.

> Not to mention, a certain
> level of computer talent was needed to get online.  

It was on CompuServe, and they made it easy - in fact, being online on
CompuServe wasn't limited by technology so much as it was by whether you
could afford it or not, because it was paid for by the minute of connect
time.

> Today even for a
> free offer you get plenty of flames for truly random reasons or no
> reason at all from people who ten years ago could not have managed to
> get online even if they wanted to.

Sure, but feeding/fanning the flames back then ended in the same result as
feeding/fanning them now.  People have not fundamentally changed in that
regard, there's just more of them.

>> And yes, those
>> discussions were had a bit before you got your driver's license.
> 
> Which reminds me I should update my website, that picture is really old
> now... ;-)

<G>  There's a reason I don't post photos of myself on my own website.

>> That's the nature of online support, my friend.  I've been doing online
>> support for nearly 15 years now, and the nature of it is that you
>> *will* have the same discussions over and over and over again, ad
>> nauseum. That is virtually *guaranteed*, and there is absolutely
>> *nothing* you can do about it.
> 
> Oh, hence I posted the link to an old discussion.  Interesting enough,
> absolutely nothing new came up in this one, but plenty was repeated from
> the last ones.  Obviously it is fine to discuss the same thing again and
> waste resources for that, but it is not necessary to read the old
> discussion. Personally I think such attitude is unacceptable.

Well, in your life perhaps it is.  There are probably quite a few (such as
myself) who did go and read the old discussion, and the link was quite
helpful.  But as I said, the nature of people hasn't changed fundamentally
when it comes to interacting online (well, in the meat world that's true
pretty much as well).  People will continue to do things that you or I
consider to be not particularly bright, and nothing we say or do will
change that.  My approach is just not to let myself get wound up about it
(because all that's doing is making you more frustrated, and that's no
fun, is it?) and just let them continue.  Like I said, perhaps some gem
will come out of the discussion - perhaps not.  Without a time machine,
there's no way to tell where the discussion might lead.

>> Yelling at people doesn't work.  Just let them bash it out in their
>> own time - sometimes, people have to learn things for themselves, they
>> have to make the mistakes that have already been made to have an
>> epiphany. Many people learn by *doing*, not by being told.  So let 'em.
> 
> A certain group of people her does not do that, unfortunately :-(

There's always someone who won't learn no matter what you do.  My current
job actually is technical education, dealing with identity management
solutions where politics are > 80% of the actual job.  Teaching technical
people how to navigate the corporate political landscape can be quite
interesting, and there are always those who don't get it.  Your "job" (if
you could call it that) isn't really to keep them from making those
mistakes, though.  I find that many communities will police themselves
quite well if given half a chance, and it really lowers everyone's
stress/frustration level to leave the heavy moderating to the times it's
really needed (such as the circumstances where someone's slamming the
team, hell, I'll jump in and hit back for that as well, because you guys
do some damn fine work).  Personally, I find that letting online
communities police themselves as much as is reasonable (there always has
to be something to deal with spam/unacceptable behaviour/language/etc,
that's the nature of the beast) works the best because then the operators
don't draw fire as the "bad guys" (or whatever euphemism seems appropriate). 

>> Who knows, maybe the 15th time, someone will have an idea that nobody
>> on the POV-Ray team has thought of.  I'm sure you'll be skeptical of
>> that statement/idea, though.  You only want discussions that - how did
>> you put it - "Contribute something of value".  But of course nobody but
>> you knows what you consider valuable, so the only way to find it is to
>> be subjected to your anger and frustration.  Quite frankly, that's a
>> great way to drive users away from the POV-Ray project (again,
>> BTDTGTTS).
> 
> As repeated numerous times now, and not only by me, there is exactly no
> interested in plug-ins, even if discussed a 20th time.  If that i the
> only suggestion people have that would be really sad.

If it's a springboard for another idea that is considered feasible,
though, then the discussion had merit, no?

>> It's a shame that there are those who would rather not have open
>> discussion about things relating to the software, regardless of the
>> value they perceive in the discussions.
> 
> Again, you are completely missing the difference between repeating a
> discussion and discussing a new idea.  New ideas are really welcome!!!

That is good to know.

> Yet, that requires first getting an idea if something was not already
> suggested before.  Like in real-life, you would not walk into a meeting
> and repeat the ideas of last year.  All you would be told is to read
> memo xyz and if you would not do so and come again with the same idea
> the next week and the week after that, eventually you would have a hard
> time not being perceived as a total joke by your coworkers, friends or
> whoever you are meeting with.  Yet, for some strange reason a behavior
> that is considered totally inappropriate in real-life seems to be
> expected to be accepted by everybody when a small minority insists on
> it.

Well, in my experience in US corporate culture, sometimes an idea that was
rejected in one year is usable the following year - but there is a
significant difference in the corporate culture environments that you work
in and that I work in, I will grant you that.  The company I work for
acquired a German company last year, and I see a lot of the exact same
types of discussions going on internally as well.  A very good friend of
mine in the United Kingdom actually made the observation that in the US,
everyone's opinion is valued - sometimes to an extreme fault - but over
here, we're perhaps too eager for more opinions on a matter than are
relevant.  German corporations tend more towards the approach you've taken
in this discussion - we've discussed it, the decision is made, let's move
on to something new.

Both approaches have their upsides and downsides.  If I might be so bold
as to suggest that as this discussion area is international by its very
nature and that the POV-Ray team is also international by its very nature,
that perhaps taking a step back from what you may perceive as a cultural
norm and see it from a broader - more global - perspective.  The reality
is that the world is shrinking every single day, and those of us who will
succeed in business in the smaller world of tomorrow are the ones who can
step back from our own cultures (and it is a *multi-way* street, not just
two-way) and at least see things from others' points of view.

Myself, I've had to learn in just the last two years how to interact with
my German counterparts, my English counterparts, my Indian counterparts,
and my counterparts from across the United States.  Each culture has its
own way of handling things - the Germans, as I indicated, want decisions
made and never revisited; the Indians (and I mean India, not Native
Americans, just to be clear) want very precise directions given with no
ambiguity whatsoever - otherwise some of them will discuss a topic forever
and not write anything, just because they don't feel they *fully*
understand the requirement; the Americans want to get everyone's buy-in to
the solution and a reduction in conflict by making sure everyone's opinion
is heard.

Wow; I'll leave it at that, since this really isn't relevant to the
software per se, just this discussion about the software.  More than happy
to continue either in the off-topic group or via e-mail - just visit my
website (hendersj.dyndns.org) and drop me feedback, and that'll hit my
mailbox. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> You want posts to contribute something, well perhaps it's time you started
> leading by example.  Stop feeding the trolls and get back to the actual topic,

I have to admit you are right :-(

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

On 14 Feb 2005 18:42:37 -0500, "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> > see images like
> > http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3C39e71e97%40
> > news.povray.org%3E/escher4.jpg which are completly procedural
>
> _Ofcourse_ I know this. But some sophisticated functiosn that use flow 
> control, if's, loops, and so on - are realy hard/uncomfortable to write 
> without a language at least simmilar to

Conditions and loops are already possible within functions engine while I do
not say it is perfect I think it is enough to be base for further development
for delivering custom shaders, IMO.

Kind reminder: you did not answered and enumerated these raytracers which does
support portable plugins in form of shared libraries compiled to machine code
and support MacOS, MacOS X, *nix flavors and Windowses. Please respect the
rules of discussion and at least answer that you are unable to provide such
names.

> Pascal (oryginal, like 3.0 - 5.0

This is offtopic but remember that originally Niklaus Wirth developed Pascal
in 1970. It wasn't versioned with 3.0 or 5.0 numbers IIRC.

> Pascal Compiler)

Considering number of available compilers it is far from obvious what you mean
http://www.ifrance.com/franck-pissotte/pascaland/pascall.htm

> or some basic C.

As you already know POV-Ray SDL is very similar to C with #directives and
curly brackets. There is no need to reinventing the wheel, IMO.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> Indeed, lets stop adding any interesting new rewolutionary futures, since 
> Pov-RAY already left all other renderers far-behind.

  Perhaps *you* will be willing to explain us where exactly the plugins
should be called in the POV-Ray core, what would they do, and how they
will be better than having a strong scripting language?

  All this thread seems to revolve around the same theme: Plugins are cool,
plugins are great, plugins are omnipotent, I want plugins. Many people
seem to think that plugins are some magic code which can insert itself
in any place inside an existing binary and do whatever it wants freely.
  Well, they are not. If you want plugins you'll have to explain where
exactly should the core code call the plugin and which features the
plugin will be able to reimplement. (Also explaining why only those
features and not other ones would be cool.)

  The original suggestion was that there could be a plugin system in
the user-defined function feature of the SDL (that is, where you write
"#declare Something = function(...) { ... }" some dll function could
be called.
  My question is why. That would be extremely awkward and the feature
would only be available for a small percentage of people. It's specially
awkward because there are much better solutions to the same thing
(enhancing the SDL for instance). Putting a dll plugin support there
would only cause more problems that it's worth, and its usefulness
would be extremely limited (after all, an SDL user-defined function
is just a function which takes some numerical parameters and returns
a numerical value; its use is very limited, certainly not worth the
trouble, specially when there are much better solutions to the same
thing).

  A plugin system is not the answer. A better scripting language is.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> And this is why Closed Source (as in "closed discussino, closed wish lists, 
> closed bugzilla archives) is usually beter then opensource.

  One interesting example from real life comes to my mind:

  It took something like 3 or 4 years for Mozilla to implement a feature
which could be used to disallow javascript from disabling the context
menu (ie. the menu which pops with the right mouse button) since it
was first suggested.
  Why? If you followed even a bit the discussion going on, you would
have noticed that it was an endless discussion with people fighting
each other's opinions. It was almost like a war which lasted for years.
Some people strongly opposed the idea (for whatever obscure reasons) while
others tried to defend it, and the ranting went on and on for years.
Naturally it didn't make any sense at all (why would it be any bad to
allow the user to do whatever he wants? if he wants to disallow javascripts
from disabling the context menu, why shouldn't the user be able to do
that?)
  Well, at last someone just added the feature to Mozilla and now it's
there, finally ending the stupid war.

  And this was just one single minor feature.

  I'm quite certain that if there was a public discussion group about
the new scripting language of POV-Ray, it would get filled with tousands
and thousands of articles and megabytes and megabytes of text with people
just fighting each other in stupid endless wars about what features are
or are not ok. The end result will most probably be that those thousands
of articles will have no effect whatsoever on whether the feature will
be implemented or not, so why not save everyone the trouble?
  No-one participated in the developement of the current SDL, and I don't
see too many people complaining about it (even though there should be
more than enough reason for that).

-- 
#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

Thankyou.

Post a reply to this message

war### [at] tagpovrayorg news:4211f4fa@news.povray.org

>   A plugin system is not the answer. A better scripting language is.

If (_if_) I will have time I will try to write small draft/RFD of my idea 
of such plugins/shaders.

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message