POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.pov4.discussion.general : POV-Ray as a LLVM backend Server Time: 19 Feb 2019 22:59:06 GMT
  POV-Ray as a LLVM backend (Message 1 to 7 of 7)  
From: Warp
Subject: POV-Ray as a LLVM backend
Date: 19 Jun 2013 15:34:24
Message: <51c1cf80@news.povray.org>
There has been much discussion about a new scripting language for
defining scenes in POV-Ray 4.

What if POV-Ray were made into a LLVM backend, and the current scene
description language, plus any possible future new language, into a
LLVM frontend?

The advantage of this would be that you could write your scenes in any
language for which there exists a LLVM frontend. If you want to write
your scene in C++, go ahead. If you want to write it in Haskell, you can
do so. Python? Ruby? Fortran? ActionScript? Everything goes. Or you can
write it with the current SDL, given that a SDL frontend is made.

Also, scenes can be "pre-parsed" into LLVM's internal format and
re-rendered from that format directly, saving the time it takes to parse
the original source code.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: POV-Ray as a LLVM backend
Date: 15 Jul 2013 22:38:04
Message: <51e479cc$1@news.povray.org>
Am 19.06.2013 17:34, schrieb Warp:
> There has been much discussion about a new scripting language for
> defining scenes in POV-Ray 4.
>
> What if POV-Ray were made into a LLVM backend, and the current scene
> description language, plus any possible future new language, into a
> LLVM frontend?
>
> The advantage of this would be that you could write your scenes in any
> language for which there exists a LLVM frontend. If you want to write
> your scene in C++, go ahead. If you want to write it in Haskell, you can
> do so. Python? Ruby? Fortran? ActionScript? Everything goes. Or you can
> write it with the current SDL, given that a SDL frontend is made.
>
> Also, scenes can be "pre-parsed" into LLVM's internal format and
> re-rendered from that format directly, saving the time it takes to parse
> the original source code.

I think there was some mention from Thorsten already in the dev 
newsgroup that he wanted to use LLVM as the basis for the new parser, 
and I totally second it.


Post a reply to this message

From: H  Karsten
Subject: Re: POV-Ray as a LLVM backend
Date: 4 Feb 2014 01:15:00
Message: <web.52f03dcffd78e1b0c05952420@news.povray.org>
Hi Warp,

I see a problem here, that has being taking place with the Pixar-renderman
already. And its being not solved, because it can't be solved: Lot of people
know about the .RIB file-format for the Pixar-Renderman but not very much people
know about, that you can program the renderer, like you can do as in Pov-Ray.

Simply, because almost nobody using this feature. Not because it wouldn't make
any sense, but just because you can use C++ the same as you can use Basic or
whatever. And whenever you have a question, there is simply nobody in a
community, able to help you.

The answers are from: "Hey I'm programming the Pixar renderman, but I'm using
another Language, sorry" to "I'm using C++, but sorry, I'm never use to program
the Pixar renderman"

Yes it's clearly a technical disadvantage to have one language only for a
renderer. But not every problem should by seen technically.

With lots of languages in PovRay you loose support - you fork the community into
several languages. PovRay won't get more users by having more languages.
Instead, people will be shocked of the "complexity" of PovRay, having no idea,
where to start. And simply never start, using it.


Best rgds,
Holger


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: POV-Ray as a LLVM backend
Date: 4 Feb 2014 16:44:15
Message: <52f118df@news.povray.org>
H. Karsten <h-karsten()web.de> wrote:
> With lots of languages in PovRay you loose support - you fork the community into
> several languages. PovRay won't get more users by having more languages.
> Instead, people will be shocked of the "complexity" of PovRay, having no idea,
> where to start. And simply never start, using it.

Why would the current community support disappear?

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Alain
Subject: Re: POV-Ray as a LLVM backend
Date: 4 Feb 2014 21:19:41
Message: <52f1596d$1@news.povray.org>
Le 14-02-04 11:44, Warp a écrit :
> H. Karsten <h-karsten()web.de> wrote:
>> With lots of languages in PovRay you loose support - you fork the community into
>> several languages. PovRay won't get more users by having more languages.
>> Instead, people will be shocked of the "complexity" of PovRay, having no idea,
>> where to start. And simply never start, using it.
>
> Why would the current community support disappear?
>

It would not disappear, multiple languages could fragment it. Such a 
fragmentation could lead to sectarism where those using language x may 
get tempted to belittle language y...


Post a reply to this message

From: scott
Subject: Re: POV-Ray as a LLVM backend
Date: 5 Feb 2014 16:08:07
Message: <52f261e7$1@news.povray.org>
> It would not disappear, multiple languages could fragment it. Such a
> fragmentation could lead to sectarism where those using language x may
> get tempted to belittle language y...

What, people using C++ belittling someone using Haskell? Unheard of...


Post a reply to this message

From: H  Karsten
Subject: Re: POV-Ray as a LLVM backend
Date: 5 Feb 2014 20:15:01
Message: <web.52f29b85fd78e1b0c05952420@news.povray.org>
> What, people using C++ belittling someone using Haskell? Unheard of...

Haskell coders are to busy to take notice ;)


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2008 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.