 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Will there ever be one, or will this be after 3.5?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Will there ever be one, or will this be after 3.5?
Nathan mentioned previously that MP is on hold until after the release
of 3.5.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote...
> "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Will there ever be one, or will this be after 3.5?
>
> Nathan mentioned previously that MP is on hold until after the release
> of 3.5.
Yes, this is true. Actually, there wasn't supposed to be a 0.7, but POV 3.5
was delayed so it was necessary. I don't anticipate a need for a 0.8 until
after POV 3.5 is out. That means that probably the next MegaPov will be
based on 3.5 and thus will require a bit of rewriting.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Speaking of which... How long a break (if any) are you guys planning after
3.5 is out before starting on 4.0? Long enough to let some of us learn the
syntax of C/C++ so we can pitch in I hope. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
: Speaking of which... How long a break (if any) are you guys planning after
: 3.5 is out before starting on 4.0?
I haven't the slightest idea, but from my personal experience rewriting
completely a software this large can take years.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> Speaking of which... How long a break (if any) are you guys planning after
> 3.5 is out before starting on 4.0?
They'll just take a nice relaxing vacation in their Mediterrannean
villas for a while, then start going on talk show tours saying that
they've started working on new material, then one of the members will
leave in a fit of rage to start working on a solo project citing he
didn't like the way they were going, etc...
You know, the usual...
> Long enough to let some of us learn the syntax of C/C++ so we can
> pitch in I hope. :)
Long enough for you to realize that there is no language called C/C++.
--
Francois Labreque | Now, at this point, I am not even going to tell you
flabreque | to twiddle your knob, because as we all know, you
@ | have had plently of practice in that skill by now...
videotron.ca | - StvCD7
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I haven't the slightest idea, but from my personal experience rewriting
> completely a software this large can take years.
I figure the very planning of the rewrite will take a few months... but once
that's done, wouldn't delegating small chuncks to many programmers get
a year or two. Of course, first we have to find the "many programmers" to
help in the first place. :\ Darn... there goes that plan. Anybody got a
better idea?
On a related note, I think it would be nice if the development of POV could
be opened up a little more. Something like this:
1) Projects are assigned by the Team. The Team is working on the core
(whatever that is), and leaves everyone else to do the small(er) stuff.
2) A dropbox is setup, whereto people send their possible solutions to the
assigned problem.
3) A designated senior programmer from the Team reviews the suggestions to
choose the best one, and improves it, if possible.
Of course, this is just me coming up with it as I go along, so forgive me
for my ignorance and enthusiasm. :) (Hides from Warp's incoming barage.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote in message news:3b20e288@news.povray.org...
<snip>
IIRC there was a hint that the next version of POV (after 3.5) would adopt a more
open development route...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque wrote:
> Long enough for you to realize that there is no language called C/C++.
C++ exists (get Stroustrup book) it is just that NO compiler development
team is FORCED to comply to the definition. Java and ADA have draconian
rules which make things quite different.
Anyway, if you want to compile POV4 with every C++ - like compiler in on earth,
well, this means that there will NEVER be 4.0. With C++, you have to select
a pool of widespread compilers and ignore the rest.
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> IIRC there was a hint that the next version of POV (after 3.5) would adopt
a more
> open development route...
Maybe that's where my subconscious dug this out of... I'm incapable of
original ideas... <sigh>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
