Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Of course, it wouldn't be a problem if they were bytecompiled to some common
> > binary representation.
>
>   A library needs an interface to be used. That can't be bytecompiled.

There're docs for that purpose.  And if I'm not wrong, .Net's CLR provides
that interoperation between libraries written in different languages.

> > But, what really bothers me is that I'm not sure povray artists bother about
> > writing their own SDLs just to render a scene.  I'd be interested to see the
> > opinion of guys like Gilles Tran, Jaime Vives, Jim Charter, Tek and other
> > advanced SDL users...
>
>   I'm sure they use libraries for many things.

A library is not the same as a language.  Except perhaps in the Lisp
world... :)

BTW, I replied this in the other thread, but find it relevant here too:

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> As you might have noticed, not everybody is convinced we should have one (SDL).

hello?!  Drop povray's SDL and povray is just among many rendering engines.
I believe to be the crown jewel of povray!

We should have one and only povray SDL and it should have easy syntax and
semantics, should be mostly declarative interspeced with a few useful
control flow commands and should be modular.  If someone wishes to program
in another language which suits his needs best, do it and create a program
in said language which compiles his scene or library to povray SDL, just
like today.

I think if povray loses its SDL, it'd lose its identity.  If it shipped just
with some sort of bytecode VM for which lots of languages could compile to,
it'd still lose its identity.

Povray needs its own unique SDL, period.

Post a reply to this message