Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Frederico Lopes <fre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > It's in the developpers' plans porting POV-Ray to Android?
>
>   If I have understood correctly, Android development happens in Java,
> so the answer is no.

Well, this poses another question: why not a POV-Ray version in Java? We see in
the market smartphones more powerful than some computers (like Motorola Atrix
and the like), that can possibly run a stripped down version of POV-Ray. It's a
matter of time to see gadgets better than our today's computers. Why not to
think in that direction?

Fred

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:43:33 +0200, Frederico Lopes <fre### [at] gmailcom>  
wrote:

> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Frederico Lopes <fre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> > It's in the developpers' plans porting POV-Ray to Android?
>>
>>   If I have understood correctly, Android development happens in Java,
>> so the answer is no.
>
> Well, this poses another question: why not a POV-Ray version in Java? We  
> see in
> the market smartphones more powerful than some computers (like Motorola  
> Atrix
> and the like), that can possibly run a stripped down version of POV-Ray.  
> It's a
> matter of time to see gadgets better than our today's computers. Why not  
> to
> think in that direction?
>
> Fred
>

I agree.
I predict that one of these days our Cell-phones will be our PC's and our  
kids (grand-children?) will laugh at the idea of 60cm computer case...

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Frederico Lopes <fre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Well, this poses another question: why not a POV-Ray version in Java?

  Firstly, Java is not as efficient as C++. (It has got significantly more
efficient than it was when it was first introduced, but it's still not as
efficient.)

  Secondly, you talk as if porting POV-Ray to Java would be a simple
operation. Haha.

  Thirdly, Java is not as a good platform as people once tried to make it
to be (and some even today pretend it to be). It has lots of problems which
have caused many developers to switch to some other alternatives (such as C#,
and some even back to C++). The decision to make Android a Java platform
(with no official support for other development languages) is a somewhat
dubious one.

  Fourthly, if the sole purpose of porting POV-Ray to Java would be to be
able to run it on a cellphone, that's just wasted effort. Nobody's going to
do anything serious with POV-Ray on a cellphone. It would be a passing
curiosity, nothing more. The whole thing would be pretty useless.

  (Running POV-Ray on an iPad *might* make some sense, but on a cellphone?
Not really. Of course if you would want POV-Ray for iPad, you'll have to
stick to C++, so the porting effort would be very small compared to porting
it to a Java platform.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.06.2011 22:43, schrieb Frederico Lopes:

> Well, this poses another question: why not a POV-Ray version in Java?

Because, despite JIT-compilers, C++ is still more performant on the 
major target platforms (currently Windows and Linux), and maintaining a 
Java port besides the C++ version would be a major PITA?

I'd rather modify some existing C++ compiler to generate JVM bytecode - 
that might turn out to be less of an effort, at least in the long run.

But of course you're free to do your own Java-port of POV-Ray :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:21:45 -0400, Warp wrote:

>  It would be a passing
> curiosity, nothing more. The whole thing would be pretty useless.

Well, it would be an excellent way to run the battery down *really 
fast*. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:21:45 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
> >  It would be a passing
> > curiosity, nothing more. The whole thing would be pretty useless.
>
> Well, it would be an excellent way to run the battery down *really
> fast*. :)

indeed.  I currently limit my usage when there's no power outlet in sight to
just music playing and ebook reading.  Any networking is also a heavy battery
drier, so I often resort to "airplane mode".

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:38:41 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:21:45 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>> >  It would be a passing
>> > curiosity, nothing more. The whole thing would be pretty useless.
>>
>> Well, it would be an excellent way to run the battery down *really
>> fast*. :)
> 
> indeed.  I currently limit my usage when there's no power outlet in
> sight to just music playing and ebook reading.  Any networking is also a
> heavy battery drier, so I often resort to "airplane mode".

Same here, I do the same with my Nook, too - in airplane mode unless I 
need the network connection.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:49:15 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>  
wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:38:41 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:21:45 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>> >  It would be a passing
>>> > curiosity, nothing more. The whole thing would be pretty useless.
>>>
>>> Well, it would be an excellent way to run the battery down *really
>>> fast*. :)
>>
>> indeed.  I currently limit my usage when there's no power outlet in
>> sight to just music playing and ebook reading.  Any networking is also a
>> heavy battery drier, so I often resort to "airplane mode".
>
> Same here, I do the same with my Nook, too - in airplane mode unless I
> need the network connection.
>
> Jim

And I thought it's just my stupid LG KS360 that has a short battery life...

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:02:13 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:49:15 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:38:41 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:21:45 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >  It would be a passing
>>>> > curiosity, nothing more. The whole thing would be pretty useless.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it would be an excellent way to run the battery down *really
>>>> fast*. :)
>>>
>>> indeed.  I currently limit my usage when there's no power outlet in
>>> sight to just music playing and ebook reading.  Any networking is also
>>> a heavy battery drier, so I often resort to "airplane mode".
>>
>> Same here, I do the same with my Nook, too - in airplane mode unless I
>> need the network connection.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> And I thought it's just my stupid LG KS360 that has a short battery
> life...

Seems to be pretty much anything with a higher speed processor in it.  My 
HTC phone's battery life isn't bad, but that's because I underclock the 
CPU when the battery is halfway depleted.

Deleting the batterystat.bin file (I think it's called) also can help.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Frederico Lopes" <fre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It's in the developpers' plans porting POV-Ray to Android?

No need for a specific port to Android. Just compile under Debian armhf and it
will run. You'll need root access to your Android device and will have to use
the command-line for it to run. I have binaries up in Misc area of the
newsgroups.

Post a reply to this message