clipka wrote:

> It might be too complex for ordinary folk to make use of its *full power*, but
> simply coding a scene should be no tad more difficult than it is ATM.
> 
That could be true, but I'm skeptical. The "full power" users would 
dominate and the
rest of us would be sidelined, as has happen in programming in general. 
But maybe the
old versions would be left for the rest of us and not be scuttled as in 
programming.

:) Does this work?

David

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
> 
>>> Why do you associate OOP with .Net?
> 
>> Needless complexity.
> 
>   That didn't answer the question at all.
> 
True I didn't use a complete sentence. Both OOP and .Net programing seem 
needlessly
  complex. My sole experience with .Net is with Microsoft Visual 
Basic.Net, version
2008 and the first version. I really don't know the significance of the 
".net" extension
attached to a program name, but I associate it with Microsoft bloat and 
obscurity.

David

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   The whole idea of object-oriented programming is to make it *easier* to
> write programs, especially compared to straightforward imperative/structured
> programming (as the SDL is currently).
> 

That I cannot believe!!

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> (BTW, shame on you - this topic's off topic here... :P)
> 
> 

(Laugh) I love it! What can be off-topic to off-topic?  What you mean, I 
think, is that
this topic is forbidden! Or maybe simply unwanted.

So I'll apologize and go do something more useful.

:) Does my smile work? No need to answer that. I'll read my post.

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   The whole idea of object-oriented programming is to make it *easier* to
> > write programs, especially compared to straightforward imperative/structured
> > programming (as the SDL is currently).
> > 

> That I cannot believe!!

  Well, then I can only say that you are wrong. The whole idea of OOP is
to make programming easier and more manageable. That's why it was invented
in the first place.

  Do you really think a new programming paradigm would be developed and
get widespread if it was *harder* to use than older, ascetic imperative
approaches?

  You seem to have the misconception that in order to write a program in
an object-oriented programming language you need to know the entire language
before you can do anything.

  You are saying that the current SDL is easy to learn. Do you honestly think
that making it object-oriented means removing those easy control structures
such as while-loops and functions?

  And can't you see how limited the current SDL is? For example, how can you
increase the current camera angle by 5 degrees? Or read the pigment of an
existing object at a specific point? Or create a binary search tree? Or remove
an object from an existing union?

  You can't. Why? Because the current SDL is an archaic pile of kludges, one
on top of another. It's limited, inflexible and hard to use for anything
more complicated than simple while-looping.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 21-7-2009 18:04, David H. Burns wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:

> The original way by using colons and brackets. If you have an recent 
> newsreader it will substitute the smileys.

Thanks. :) like this or maybe like this :]?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Do you really think a new programming paradigm would be developed and
> get widespread if it was *harder* to use than older, ascetic imperative
> approaches?
> 
Yes, (though I have no idea what  "ascetic imperative approaches" means) 
such things have
  happened more than once! But I've been ruled off topic again --
which is a good thing, it keeps from wasting my time and yours on my 
soapbox. :)

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   Do you really think a new programming paradigm would be developed and
> > get widespread if it was *harder* to use than older, ascetic imperative
> > approaches?
> > 
> Yes, (though I have no idea what  "ascetic imperative approaches" means) 
> such things have
>   happened more than once!

  Yeah, sure. I'm now convinced that OOP became so widespread regardless
of being significantly harder than imperative programming.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21-7-2009 23:37, David H. Burns wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> 
>> (BTW, shame on you - this topic's off topic here... :P)
>>
>>
> 
> (Laugh) I love it! What can be off-topic to off-topic?  What you mean, I 
> think, is that
> this topic is forbidden! Or maybe simply unwanted.
> 
> So I'll apologize and go do something more useful.
> 
> :) Does my smile work? No need to answer that. I'll read my post.

That you see your smiley does not mean everybody else will.

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> I've looked at enough OOP programs. Pov-Ray's current scripting language
>   is easy to use once you learn the syntax. All that the introduction of
> OOP would do
> is to make it more difficult and time consuming to write a workable
> script.

An "OOP-enabled" language need not necessarily look like C++, Java or C#, if
that's what deters you.


> It matters
> little to me if the Pov-Ray source is written in OOP, though I think it
> would be a step
>   backwards or maybe side ways. (In fact it will probably become
> necessary for the source
> code to be written in OOP at least until the fad dies.)

POV-Ray 3.7 *is* already being written using OOP - not because we'd be living in
times of an OO hype, but because it *does* simplify both the development and - a
very important point in this respect - maintenance. As a professional software
developer I'm speaking out of experience here.

Once you've embraced the OO paradigms, you'll no longer wonder whether it's a
step back or sideways - you'll know that it's a step forward.


> What I don't want to see is the scripting language OOPified! As I said
> it already uses "object" with "data
>   members" and "methods", but it doesn't require the complex and (to my
> mind) arcane OOP structure
> and "philosophy".

Granted, some people can really blurp about it.

But if you already see "objects" and "data members" and "methods" in the SDL,
then there isn't much complexity to be added that you haven't seen yet - except
that an SDL with native OOP support would allow to define custom objects, to be
used in just the same way as POV-Ray's built-in primitives.

Also, the blurp can sometimes help to define the language in such a way that it
can be implemented with very compact code. Though I agree that it may be wise
not to force all the blurp that helped during development onto the casual
users.

Post a reply to this message