 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/24/09 03:43, Invisible wrote:
> 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...
I, for one, propose that the SDL in POV-Ray 5.0 should be functional.
--
AD&D Famous last words: Me first. Me first!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/24/09 07:38, David H. Burns wrote:
>> 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
Hardly, What you like is procedural. Functional programming is a whole
other beast altogether, where you normally don't do explicit loops but
use constructs like map, filter, etc. Lots of lambdas thrown in as well.
--
AD&D Famous last words: Me first. Me first!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The decades was an exaggeration.
I made a formula to figure out when v4 will be complete :-)
2009 + B + K*(A + B)
Where:
A = years already spent on v3.7 devlopment
B = years still to go until v3.7 is complete
K = multiplier for amount of work needed for v4 compared to v3.7
A is 5 I think? Choose some values for B and K and see what you get!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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...
>
> I, for one, propose that the SDL in POV-Ray 5.0 should be functional.
I'm not sure whether we should go for 100% functional, or do 95%
functional. You know, like the way SQL is 95% relational (but still 5%
procedural). I'm unsure at this time...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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 don't use Thunderbird, but maybe someone else might be able to help you.
In Windows Live Mail you can choose "Tools -> Get Next <X> Headers" where X
is the value you set for how many to download at a time - maybe there is
something similar?
If not then you can always use the web view here:
http://news.povray.org/povray.pov4.discussion.general/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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...
>>
>> I, for one, propose that the SDL in POV-Ray 5.0 should be functional.
>
> I'm not sure whether we should go for 100% functional, or do 95%
> functional. You know, like the way SQL is 95% relational (but still 5%
> procedural). I'm unsure at this time...
I wonder if it would it be possible for POV to expose its core functions in
a standard way (eg in a dll for windows), and then you can access them from
any programming language you like. The SDL parser just needs to be a
special case that parses the file and calls the same POV core functions that
you can from your own code.
It would make things like doing complex simulations much easier, because you
could use eg C++ to get good speed, and have POV render the result quickly
each frame. Also if you wanted to use Haskell, or anything else, you could.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I wonder if it would it be possible for POV to expose its core functions
> in a standard way (eg in a dll for windows), and then you can access
> them from any programming language you like. The SDL parser just needs
> to be a special case that parses the file and calls the same POV core
> functions that you can from your own code.
>
> It would make things like doing complex simulations much easier, because
> you could use eg C++ to get good speed, and have POV render the result
> quickly each frame. Also if you wanted to use Haskell, or anything
> else, you could.
That's an interesting idea. However, I have a vague recollection that
this would be incompatible with the terms of the POV-Ray license.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> > *Now* you're talking about something OOP- and programming-related:
> > Modularization. But what on earth does your previous post's talk of "concepts",
> > pens, cars, dogs and cats have to do with this?
>
> In object-oriented programming a class is basically a user-defined type,
> and a user-defined type is a concept. For example, "a string" is a concept,
> and a string class is the implementation of that concept.
Yeah yeah yeah... sure... I'm repeating myself here: *I* know how to map your
words to OOP, so you needn't tell me. It still doesn't convince me that
OOP-newbies have any idea what this cats & dogs crap is all about, and
introducing OOP in a much different way would make it much easier to grasp.
Let alone that OOP is not just "OOP". It is a combination of multiple concepts,
many of which don't require each other; the typical blurp tries to introduce
the whole "concept" of OOP all at once, instead of introducing the concepts one
by one.
> [lotsa stuff skipped]
> Modular programming does know the concept of instantiating modules. For
> example the modula programming language (which is not an OOP language) has
> modules with public and private interfaces, and which can be instantiated
> and referenced. (What makes it non-OOP is that it doesn't support inheritance
> nor obviously dynamic binding.)
.... and that's a very typical example of how modularity is commonly percieved,
huh?
Yes, modules occasionally *are* instantiated and referenced; but in typical
modular projects they're *not*, and instead just resemble code libraries.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I remember once way back, having written docs for the library, I was sitting
> there coding it up. (The project was a rewrite from BASIC to C, so I had a
> real good idea what the library needed to do.) I had a stack of
> documentation, and I was implementing each function. The "best" programmer
> in the company comes up and asks what I'm doing, and I tell him. He points
> to the inch-thick print-out, asks what it is, and I tell him it's the docs.
> He says, sounding baffled, "How can you write the docs before the program?"
> I ask him "How can you know when you're done programming without writing the
> docs first?"
Now, ever wondered what the subtleties between SW development, programming and
coding may be?
What you did was SW development: Designing a program, then coding it.
What the other guy did was programming: Just make sure to produce a program, no
matter how...
:)
(BTW, did you know that your working style costs jobs? 'Cause as long as people
program software instead of developing it, you can't just outsource the coding
part to India... :P)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> >> Shouldn't that be "the Buck"? ;)
> >
> > ??
>
> As in, David K Buck :)
Ah - now here comes light ;)
But no: Leader of the dev team is currently Chris Cason :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
