Someone told me that the next version of Pov-Ray would be OOP. Horrors! 
Another
  useful and fun thing lost to EEP. Another triumph of the EPP! (It 
seems to me that
the Pov-Ray scripting language already makes more intelligent use of 
"objects" than OOP.) Will we
next see Microsoft Visual Pov-Ray.Net along with Microsoft Pov-Ray 
Development Systems?

Alas, Alas, Tell me it isn't so.

David

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> Someone told me that the next version of Pov-Ray would be OOP. Horrors! 
> Another
>  useful and fun thing lost to EEP. Another triumph of the EPP! (It seems 
> to me that
> the Pov-Ray scripting language already makes more intelligent use of 
> "objects" than OOP.) Will we
> next see Microsoft Visual Pov-Ray.Net along with Microsoft Pov-Ray 
> Development Systems?
> 
> Alas, Alas, Tell me it isn't so.

1. It isn't so.

2. What would be so bad about this being true?

3. What the hell is EEP?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 2. What would be so bad about this being true?

POV-Ray.NET, I dunno. It has a nice ring to it.

The next POVRay will be multi-threaded, but use the same SDL we know and 
love.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Someone told me that the next version of Pov-Ray would be OOP. Horrors!
> Another
>   useful and fun thing lost to EEP. Another triumph of the EPP! (It
> seems to me that
> the Pov-Ray scripting language already makes more intelligent use of
> "objects" than OOP.) Will we
> next see Microsoft Visual Pov-Ray.Net along with Microsoft Pov-Ray
> Development Systems?
>
> Alas, Alas, Tell me it isn't so.
>
> David

Why do you associate OOP with .Net?

Did you know that you can program OOP with functional or imperative languages?
That it's a design philosophy more than a language feature?

Besides, there are already integrated modellers and development environments for
POV-Ray.  None from MS (yet), but they are there ;)

....Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> Why do you associate OOP with .Net?

Needless complexity.
> 
> Did you know that you can program OOP with functional or imperative languages?
> That it's a design philosophy more than a language feature?
Seems to be both.
> 
> Besides, there are already integrated modellers and development environments for
> POV-Ray.  None from MS (yet), but they are there ;)


None from MS and not exclusively from MS. IDE's themselves are great 
tools. We probably need more.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 
> 2. What would be so bad about this being true?
It would be too complex to be usable by ordinary folk (i.e. me).
> 
> 3. What the hell is EEP?
Extremely Elite Programming (my coinage)

EPP -Elite Programmer Priesthood, although you didn't ask.
(smile-- how does one put those smiley icons in?)

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Someone told me that the next version of Pov-Ray would be OOP. Horrors! 

  Could you please elaborate what's so horrible in object-oriented
programming?

  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).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21-7-2009 18:04, David H. Burns wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>>
>> 2. What would be so bad about this being true?
> It would be too complex to be usable by ordinary folk (i.e. me).
>>
>> 3. What the hell is EEP?
> Extremely Elite Programming (my coinage)
> 
> EPP -Elite Programmer Priesthood, although you didn't ask.
> (smile-- how does one put those smiley icons in?)
> 
The original way by using colons and brackets. If you have an recent 
newsreader it will substitute the smileys.

Post a reply to this message

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

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

  And exactly how do you know this?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message