 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> OK. Now I'm _really_ confused!
>
> Was your initial concern that POV-Ray - the *software* - will be
> coded using OOP?
>
> Or was it that the language that *users* of POV-Ray will have to use
> to describe their scenes will be OO?
That was my original concern but this thread seems to a mutated as
threads do.
Any opposition to OOP seems to arouse a lot of feeling.
>
> Now if your concern is the latter (that you as a *user* will have to
> describe your scene using OOP), then your concerns are not entirely
> unfounded, but they won't be relevant for a while. 3.7 will allow you to
> code as you have mostly done.
>
Yes, I'm now told that a new scripting language is decades away so I suppose
my major concern is about 20 years or so too early. What language or
with what
"philosophy" Pov-Ray is coded in is of only minor concern, if the end
product remains
usable to me.
It's all been very interesting, though.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/23/09 11:15, David H. Burns wrote:
>>> I'm sure you think in OOP all the time with POV-Ray. You create a
>>> sphere. It's an object with certain properties (texture, location,
>>> etc). Now let's say you want to rotate the sphere, does it hurt so
>>> much to do something like:
>>>
>>> mysphere.rotate(45)
>>>
>>
>> No! I think in terms of objects, not of OOP. The concept of an "object"
>> as used
>> in Pov-Ray in a valuable tool for thinking and programming -and used
>> well there.
>> What I have seen of OOP programming is something else. :)
>>
>> David
>>
>
> OK. I have no idea what you're saying.
>
> What is the "No" referring to? Are you saying "no, it doesn't hurt"?
> Are you saying "No, I hate that way of doing it"? Are you sweeping your
> hand across my whole message and saying "No! I can't stand it!"?
>
I'm sorry to seem unclear, but to me it seems that the "No" and the rest
of my
statement clearly refer to the assertion that I think in OOP all the
time when using
Pov-Ray. It seems to me that I don't, though perhaps others may know my
mind better that I do. In fact. since OOP means Object Oriented
Programming, it seems
absurd to say that I think in it (or in any other kind of programming).
On the other hand,
I am repeated told that I don't know what OOP means; maybe it *doesn't* mean
"Object Oriented Programming"(acronyms are always obstacles to
communication),
but some philosophy or mystery into which I have not been initiated. In
any case, it seems
an overstatement at least for someone else to say I thing in it. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> What I have seen of OOP programming is something else.
>
> Just out of curiosity (but you keep saying things like this, so I have
> to ask), where have you seen OOP programming?
>
Your point is well taken. I have *never* seen OOP *programming*. I
looked at some
short OOP programs or excerpts in C++, python, and Visual Basic --
though I believe that the
earlier VB code that I have seen aren't really OO, but simply have some
of the trappings.
The "OOP" code I've seen in VB could have been written without the
OOP-like veneer.
To actually see OOP "programming", I suppose I would have to see some
one actually
coding in OOP.
I don't want to have to write something like those programs, I have
seen to produce a Pov-Ray
script!
But, apparently, that is a worry for only the remote future.
David
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns 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!!
Now you guys know how *I* feel when I try to tell people that functional
programming is a good idea. ;-) Nobody ever seems to believe me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Even if POV4 does change to an OOP model that you don't like, a) that is
>> not going to be released for decades, and b) you are free to still use
>> the latest stable 3.x release. I wouldn't worry about it.
>>
> If that be the case, shall we postpone this discussion for
> twenty years or so? :-)
Not if you want to influence the POV4 design, the discussions for that have
already started, although I suspect it won't be until after POV3.7 is out of
beta before any real work gets started on it.
> Did that produce a wink.
I got a smile :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> If that be the case, shall we postpone this discussion for
>> twenty years or so? :-)
>
> Not if you want to influence the POV4 design, the discussions for that
> have already started, although I suspect it won't be until after POV3.7
> is out of beta before any real work gets started on it.
Are they going on on some other Pov-Ray newsgroup? The Pov4 group I
could get to
seemed to be involved with other things. I may have said too much anyway.
>
>> Did that produce a wink.
>
> I got a smile :-)
Oh well...
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> David H. Burns 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!!
>
> Now you guys know how *I* feel when I try to tell people that functional
> programming is a good idea. ;-) Nobody ever seems to believe me...
You encourage me. But we seem to be out of fad. ;-) :) (An attachment
to your email reader which converted all ASCII characters into icons
would be interesting -- or stand alone program. It's probably been done.)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Are they going on on some other Pov-Ray newsgroup? The Pov4 group I could
> get to
> seemed to be involved with other things. I may have said too much anyway.
Check the povray.pov4.discussion.general group, particularly the threads
"Next Generation SDL Brainstorming" and "Next Generation SDL: What's wrong
with Lua, JavaScript, ...".
If you have something to contribute (eg "Hey I think my suggestion is better
than any OOP idea I've seen, and here's why...") then you should post it in
that group. This group goes off-topic very quickly no matter what you say
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/24/09 02:53, David H. Burns wrote:
> Yes, I'm now told that a new scripting language is decades away so I
> suppose
> my major concern is about 20 years or so too early. What language or
> with what
> "philosophy" Pov-Ray is coded in is of only minor concern, if the end
> product remains
> usable to me.
The decades was an exaggeration. However, it is a while away. Work has
not begun on 4.0, and it intends to be quite different from today's
POV-Ray - and not just in terms of the scripting language.
--
AD&D Famous last words: Me first. Me first!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Check the povray.pov4.discussion.general group, particularly the threads
> "Next Generation SDL Brainstorming" and "Next Generation SDL: What's
> wrong with Lua, JavaScript, ...".
Thanks, Scott,
I see only 4 threads and neither of these. Thunderbird is giving me
problem?
I initially told it to download only 100 messages and can't get it to
down load anymore.
After unsubscribing and re subscribing a couple of times, it downloads
only 107. Maybe
power on power off will help.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
