Jerry Anning wrote:
> 
> I don't object to object orientation in principle, although I despise
> the long-winded dot notation.  I would indeed like to have access to
> the properties of an object, preferably via additional keywords and
> functions.  My big problem with this proposal is that, if you dump the
> old syntax for an OO version, you lose too many people who can't
> handle the transition.  If you keep both syntax styles the POV parser,
> already getting unwieldy, will become such a PITA that the pace of
> expansion and development will slow radically and things that do get
> written will have multitudes of painful bugs.  You might as well just
> hire Microsux to write the next version of POV! :)
> 

I kind of agree... but since when is dot notation long-winded?  A dot,
being a single character, is about as short as you can get.  What I
dislike is having to put "#declare" in front of all assignment statements.
It's worse than the LET in very old versions of BASIC.

In some ways I wish the entire POV language could be cleaned up (but this
could cause a lack of backwards compatibility)... and I think that the
object-oriented ability to change properties of an instance of an object
is a MUST, since I think that we should be able to do animation within
a single script (without the need to re-parse!!!!) by changing an
attribute of a single object and re-rendering.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message