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