I don't always agree with you Ken but this time I do

Rather than make wholesale changes ask yourself this...What can't povray do?
then add it to the existing language.

Mick

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3750D8F3.DDC25598@pacbell.net...
> Daren Scot Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, that would save some typing.
> >
> > I see the same trend happening with povray as with the data analysis
software
> > I'm writing for a client.   I had a nice simple scripting language for
data
> > analysis and generating plots, but we found we needed "if" statements,
then
> > "if-then-else" and then we needed "goto" - youch! try adding that to a
parser
> > that wasn't designed for it - and now maybe text string variables, and
..., and
> > ..., and ...
> >
> > It seems that most script languages that try to keep simple end up
growing all
> > the other features found in most programming languages.  So why not just
adopt
> > an existing language, an object-oriented one, perhaps Python, and put
all the
> > good stuff like geometric models, textures, lights, etc. into libraries
of
> > classes?   This would allow unlimited possibilities for looping,
calculating,
> > user-defined functions, debugging support, and more.
> >
> > What would be the relative advantages of 1) just adding new keywords and
> > directives to povray's existing language;  2) expanding it so much that
it
> > becomes a "real" language; and 3) giving up and using an existing
outside
> > language, making
> >
> > --
> > Daren Scot Wilson
> > dar### [at] pipelinecom
> > www.newcolor.com
> > ----
>
> A few of my thoughts on your query:
>
>
> Who will these changes serve ?
>
> What percentage of the current user base will benefit from the proposed
> changes and how many might suffer as a result ?
>
> Will my 8 3/5 year old nephew still be able to use the program after these
> changes are made ? ( I don't think so )
>
>   By changing to a "real" programing language interface you will be
> changing it into a programmers interface that takes specialized
> programming skills to use rather than the simple parser description
> language in use now. I don't believe you understand how important that
> is for people that have no skills in programming.
>
>   I read a newsgroup post somewhere a couple of months ago from a 55
> year old new computer user with about 9 months total experience using
> any kind of computer system. He could hardly contain his joy at having
> been introduced to povray and while everything he tried was confusing
> he felt that Pov was structured in such a logical way that it was only
> a matter of time before he picked up speed.
>
>   Personally I think such a change would make Povray more difficult for
> non programmer people to use it and runs a very serious risk of excluding
> a large part of the current user base. I have squat for programming
> skills but am considered one of the advanced users in this group. If
> you change it into a programming language interface you will turn me
> into an instant newbie and I would in most likelihood abandon using
> Pov as a result.
>
>   By adopting a "real" programming language interface you will start
> one of the largest wars known to the history of the program as to which
> of the multitude of programming languages will be adopted as the most
> flexible and the language of choice. Not insurmountable but it will
> certainly never gain a total consensus by everyone.
>
>   Let us not forget that the current level of simplicity is extended
> to people from all walks of life, country of origin, and age group.
> Also bear in mind the international flavour of this program and how
> difficult it is for non english speaking people to understand even
> the simple directives used in the text interface of the program due
> to language barriers. If you adopt a program language interface and
> abandon the current system you may increase that language barrier
> even further.
>
>   It may sound like I am being overly negative in my response but I
> prefer that you accept them as rational and very real considerations.
> When contemplating such a serious change to an already well established
> program also keep in mind the Pov team and it's supporters have gone out
> of their way to maintain consistency and backward compatibility throughout
> it's long history and you are advocating something that would throw that
> whole philosophy right out the window.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message