in news:web.4a0b00b73a7e550e405e15c60@news.povray.org clipka wrote:

> Peter Hokanson <pch### [at] riceedu> wrote:
>> This may seem a little odd, but why not use Python as an SDL?
>> ...
>> If not Python, then perhaps some other established language should
>> be considered.
> 
> This has already been discussed quite a lot and quite often.
> 
> I am by now convinced that with *all* well-established languages,
> such an approach would invariably lead to an SDL that may be quite
> fitting for programming complex stuff, but cumbersome for the most
> essential tasks the SDL will have to be used for: Describing the
> actual scene elements to instantiate. 
> 
> I think the right way to go is take an established free open-source
> language (which should be bytecode-based, have a very simple core,
> and designed to be embedded into other software; my current champion
> for this would be Lua) and replace or heavily modify its parser to
> suit the specific needs of POV-Ray. 
> 
> If there's one thing a new SDL *must not* do, then it's making
> plain-vanilla scene description significantly more cumbersome than
> with the current SDL. 
> 
> 
> 

10 years ago this was written. 
Sorry for diggin up a thread this old, but, how a bout a concept like in 
the Seed7 extensible programming language 
http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm#extensible_programming . That would 
make it possible to write and render include files and when all is fine 
(trans)compile them so they become 'part' of the SDL. (This without regard 
of the choise for actual syntax.)

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> in news:web.4a0b00b73a7e550e405e15c60@news.povray.org clipka wrote:
>
> > Peter Hokanson <pch### [at] riceedu> wrote:
> >> This may seem a little odd, but why not use Python as an SDL?
> >> ...
> >> If not Python, then perhaps some other established language should
> >> be considered.
> >
> > This has already been discussed quite a lot and quite often.
> >
> > I am by now convinced that with *all* well-established languages,
> > such an approach would invariably lead to an SDL that may be quite
> > fitting for programming complex stuff, but cumbersome for the most
> > essential tasks the SDL will have to be used for: Describing the
> > actual scene elements to instantiate.
> >
> > I think the right way to go is take an established free open-source
> > language (which should be bytecode-based, have a very simple core,
> > and designed to be embedded into other software; my current champion
> > for this would be Lua) and replace or heavily modify its parser to
> > suit the specific needs of POV-Ray.
> >
> > If there's one thing a new SDL *must not* do, then it's making
> > plain-vanilla scene description significantly more cumbersome than
> > with the current SDL.
> >
> >
> >
>
> 10 years ago this was written.
> Sorry for diggin up a thread this old, but, how a bout a concept like in
> the Seed7 extensible programming language
> http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm#extensible_programming . That would
> make it possible to write and render include files and when all is fine
> (trans)compile them so they become 'part' of the SDL. (This without regard
> of the choise for actual syntax.)
>
> Ingo
Hi, you probably missed it, otherwise your post could have been an answer to
this one posted in the last few weeks which received no answer:
http://news.povray.org/povray.pov4.discussion.general/thread/%3Cweb.5d421a0f46a21447884ec9560%40news.povray.org%3E/

Post a reply to this message