![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetel net> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetel net> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetel net> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetel net> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |