> I really don't know the significance of the ".net" extension
> attached to a program name,

You don't really sound too qualified then to complain about the "needless 
complexity" :-)

Post a reply to this message

>>   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!!

Why not?

Did you ever try to write a macro in SDL to position or rotate an object 
relative to the camera?  You can't tell me that an OOP version wouldn't be 
simpler!

Post a reply to this message

> (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.

No, it really is just the wrong group here.

If you look in the pov4.discussion.general group you will see that this 
subject has already been discussed a lot, so please read through the posts 
there, and if you feel you still have something to add then by all means 
start a new thread.  Nobody is going to flame you for a forbidden topic, I 
assume that the developers want input from as many users as possible when 
deciding what to do for POV4.

Post a reply to this message

>> 2. What would be so bad about this being true?
> It would be too complex to be usable by ordinary folk (i.e. me).

I doubt it.

Just because Java is OOP done wrong, and C++ is a superset of an already 
complicated language, doesn't mean that OOP is inherantly complex. It's 
actually quite a food fit for scene description/construction/inspection.

>> 3. What the hell is EEP?
> Extremely Elite Programming (my coinage)

Yes, well, things like Java are *just a tad* over-hyped, yes... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> 
> Yes, I personally do advocate going for strong OOP-support with POV-Ray 4 SDL. I
> do so as a POV-Ray user, and I do so as a contributing developer.
> 
> Yes, I did present a serious proposal for a new, OOP-enabled SDL in the povray 4
> newsgroup some months ago.
> 
> Yes, being active in the development of POV-Ray 3.7 I *may* happen to personally
> get my hands dirty on the code of POV-Ray 4's SDL engine.
> 



So it is so after all
:(

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Did you ever try to write a macro in SDL to position or rotate an object 
> relative to the camera?  You can't tell me that an OOP version wouldn't 
> be simpler!
> 
> 

Yes I have; maybe an OOP version would be simpler. The current SDL is 
not without flaws.
Maybe OOP would magically fix them. I guess I'll find out if I continue 
using Pov-Ray. As I
seem to be the lone objector to the Pov-Ray SDL going OOP, I don't 
suppose there is much
point in my saying more. After all, I'm assured that such changes will 
be for my own good.
:)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> 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.

This is where I mutter something about functional programming being the 
future, and everybody agrees with me...

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 19 lines --]

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

> Hm - just as a side note here: I thouht *you* were trying to convince *David*?
> Just pointing out that his objection against your point makes a poor argument
> in favor of his point... that's a rather weak point in itself.

  It was just sarcasm. Whether the sarcasm is a strong or weak argument is
irrelevant at this point.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> As I
> seem to be the lone objector to the Pov-Ray SDL going OOP,

I very much doubt that - but it will help your cause if you a) write about 
it in the correct place (ie not this group) and b) explain yourself a bit 
more rather than just "OOP makes things more complex" - because for most of 
us here that is just the opposite of our experiences.

Do you have any alternative ideas for what the POV4 SDL should be like? 
People will certainly discuss them with you in the pov4 group.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Just because Java is OOP done wrong, and C++ is a superset of an already 
> complicated language, doesn't mean that OOP is inherantly complex. It's 
> actually quite a food fit for scene description/construction/inspection.

You may be right. The complexity that I see in C++ may derive mainly 
from C. C,
in my experience, is a fascinating and addictive language, but it 
apparently allows,
maybe encourages, writing code so complex as to be almost 
undecipherable. Maybe
it bequeathed that legacy to C++ and other OOP languages and that it is 
really foreign to
OOP. Of course it matters little if OOP is not "inherently" complex if 
all existing instances
  are. The concept of an "object" which contains both data and functions 
which can operate
on the data is itself a useful and valuable, but at present, I see 
little of value in the additional
trappings of OOP. Its not O, but OP that I object to. And I don't really 
see the logic in spending
months preparing to write a program that could be effectively written in 
a simple language -- if such
had survived.

:)

Post a reply to this message