andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> My suggestion for a 'new' language would be to have an as simple as
> possible language (without loops and control structures) that is easy to
> parse for a machine but not necessarily for a human. Plus an easy way to
> integrate that with a front end, one of those should be a pov 3.6 style
> language. Or perhaps as the only front end, because if everybody can
> make his own language we may not be able to share our sources.


I've used povray in the office to do some image processing of a sort that
was not available in any commercial software I know of.  I hand-coded the
routine in SDL.  I've also taken great joy in coding projects for fun like
flocking algorithms and a car race with AI drivers.   Need loops for that.


As to Chris' statement about the future license.  First of all, I say thanks
for all you have done-- I understand you're trying to avoid legal problems
associated with code contributed from folks who are no longer active on the
team.

But I'm surprised that you appeared to be more worried about OSI than GPL3.
Right now, some linux distros turn their nose at the current license, and I
thought you were already OSI-approved. Now I'd respect your choice either
way, but wondering why you'd strive for OSI if GPL3 were in the bag. As far
as "acceptance," wouldn't GPL3 suffice?
thanks.

Post a reply to this message