 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetel net> wrote:
> 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. :)
I'd guess you *do* some "OOP (= Object Oriented Programming) thinking" when
working with POV-Ray; it's just that you don't notice, because you admittedly
don't know what Object Oriented Programming actually is - you only know how
typical end results from such thought processes look like, when formulated in a
general-purpose language retrofitted to better support such formulations
("better" as in "better than nothing") - a language which, by the way, would
surely happen to be unsuited for a POV-Ray SDL.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/24/09 08:49, Invisible wrote:
>> 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.
The POV-Ray license will either disappear in 4.0, or will be made
compatible with one of those alleged "free" licenses.
--
AD&D Famous last words: Me first. Me first!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> I don't want to have to write something like those programs, I have
> seen to produce a Pov-Ray
> script!
Um... wait a second here: You've looked at code written to create POV-Ray code?
Now that's metaprogramming, which tends to look sick in *any* language that's
not designed for it, whether it be OOP or not.
> But, apparently, that is a worry for only the remote future.
Hmm... I don't really think so. Not if you talk about decares here. 3.7 did
indeed take a while to come out (still not released), but after all it was a
major rewrite of virtually the whole code, with some serious design changes to
get it to support SMP. Compared to that, I guess development of POV-Ray 4 will
be a piece of cake - the main objectives (um... no pun intended here, really)
being that major overhaul of the SDL (but that will just mean a rewrite of the
parser, leaving the remaining code untouched), and a change in licensing to go
for GPL (not much left to do there; AFAIK virtually all previous contributors
have given their OK by now, and the remaining pieces of code have been
completely re-written).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> I'd guess you *do* some "OOP (= Object Oriented Programming) thinking" when
> working with POV-Ray; it's just that you don't notice, because you admittedly
> don't know what Object Oriented Programming actually is -
We may all be engaging in muddy thinking and language here. I do kind of
think
in terms of "objects" when using Pov-Ray, but I wouldn't call that "OOP
(= Object
Oriented Programming) thinking", even if that phrase means
anything--which I doubt.
It might be more accurate to say that I am writing code which conforms
to the syntax dictated by
the SDL -- regardless of what kind of thinking leads to it. As I have
said several times before:
I think the concept of "object" is a real advance in programming but
"OOP" seems
a lot more than simpling making use of "objects" which "contain" both
data members
and functions ("methods")
>you only know how
> typical end results from such thought processes look like, when formulated in a
> general-purpose language retrofitted to better support such formulations
> ("better" as in "better than nothing") - a language which, by the way, would
> surely happen to be unsuited for a POV-Ray SDL.
This seems to be true, where would I find some *real* OOP to look at?
David
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 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/
>
>
Thanks. I haven't had this problem with the other Newgroups. I'll look
at it via
the web.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.
>
So your not out of fad. My ignorance is showing. I'm not a professional
programmer
and have done little except for my own amusement. That being so much of
your
terminology is unfamiliar to me. I think that this thread is the only
time I have
actually talked to anyone specifically about programming theory --
although I did
a lot of reading a number of years ago.
You encourage me anyway.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> (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)
Heh. I'll keep that in mind.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
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.
I think this came up a number of times in the past. I remember getting
brutalized for suggesting CIL ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/24/09 09:51, David H. Burns wrote:
> I think the concept of "object" is a real advance in programming but
> "OOP" seems
> a lot more than simpling making use of "objects" which "contain" both
> data members
> and functions ("methods")
As I said before, you have a "ball" variable, which is just a sphere
with everything you've defined (coordinates, texture, etc).
It has data members, which would be the aforementioned items
(coordinates, pigments, etc). It also may have methods, like rotate,
translate, etc. You could do:
ball.translate(1, 3, 5)
to translate it by <1, 3, 5>.
(The syntax may be a bit different - that's a minor issue).
I think you're worried that you'll somehow have to put all your code
into the methods of objects. Heck, for simple scenes, I doubt you'll
have to code _any_ methods. POV-Ray will provide standard methods to all
objects (like rotate, translate, etc), which you will merely use.
If you want to do regular for loops, etc, it need not be part of any
object method, but in your "regular" code. No one said that the new SDL
will force everything to reside in an object like Java does.
--
Cut my pizza in six slices, please; I can't eat eight.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> I do kind of think
> in terms of "objects" when using Pov-Ray, but I wouldn't call that "OOP
> (= Object
> Oriented Programming) thinking", even if that phrase means
> anything--which I doubt.
Well, I do agree that "OOP thinking" is somewhat fuzzy.
Let me rephrase the whole smash like this:
What others call "OOP thinking" might be more familiar to you than you may be
aware of.
> It might be more accurate to say that I am writing code which conforms
> to the syntax dictated by
> the SDL -- regardless of what kind of thinking leads to it. As I have
> said several times before:
> I think the concept of "object" is a real advance in programming but
> "OOP" seems
> a lot more than simpling making use of "objects" which "contain" both
> data members
> and functions ("methods")
Yes; what you describe would be "encapsulation", which is just one major
building block of OOP. As I mentioned earlier, another important one is
"polymorphism", which you can think of as the ability to equip multiple
different objects with methods that have the same name and parameters, but
different code to match the object's data structure. An example is POV-Ray's
"sphere", "box" and all the other primitives using the very same syntax to
transform, apply textures, etc.
A third concept frequently encountered in OOP, "inheritance", on the other hand,
is in my eyes not really an essential part of OOP, but instead just a mechanism
(albeit a powerful one) to manage issues arising from polymorphism, both
regarding redundancy (different objects may be similar enough that parts of
their data structures and methods can be implemented in the very same way, so
it would be a waste of time to write and maintain that same code twice) as well
as object compatibility (compile-time detection of potential attempts to invoke
methods on objects that don't have them).
Atop of this are a bunch of design patterns which are associated with OOP,
probably for the sole reason that they're making such heavy use of
encapsulation and polymorphism that it would be extremely cumbersome to express
them in a non-OOP language.
Some other stuff often associated with OOP languages just happen to have become
popular in mainstream languages at the same time as OOP; for instance
"overloading" of functons (defining multiple functions of the same name but
with different parameter types); model-view-controller architecture (dividing
an application into three components referred to as model, view and
controller); to name a few examples.
>
> >you only know how
> > typical end results from such thought processes look like, when formulated in a
> > general-purpose language retrofitted to better support such formulations
> > ("better" as in "better than nothing") - a language which, by the way, would
> > surely happen to be unsuited for a POV-Ray SDL.
>
> This seems to be true, where would I find some *real* OOP to look at?
I don't know whether there exists such a thing as "real OOP to look at".
Whatever code you look at, if you're not familiar with the language you'll
probably see more of the language's peculiaritis than you'll see of the
programmer's original thoughts.
Academic languages are peculiar anyway; and non-academic languages tend to
accumulate traits over time that are peculiar because the original language
didn't have them.
In the case of POV-Ray, I still have to come across some language that wouldn't
outweigh the benefits by its peculiarities. The current POV-Ray SDL is so
well-suited to its basic task that it would be imprudent to go very far from
that, as far as the effective syntax is concerned. The only problem with it is
that it is particularly ill-suited for the non-basic tasks people want to use
it for these days. It is exceptionally good for *describing* a scene, but also
exceptionally bad for *generating* it (which doesn't mean it lacks the power;
being Turing-complete, you can do anything with the currend SDL; but what it
does lack is performance, some more consistency, and some more support for
OOP).
So what I'd go for is a language that is deliberately designed to be very
remniscient of the current SDL when it comes to describing scene elements, and
as straightforward when it comes to simple scene-generation tasks (like, say,
placing 100 spheres in a row) - any language imposing some overhead for these
two would be ill-suited for POV-Ray.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
