Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: This still doesn't answer my question: Why?

: Why would more OO features in the scene language improve its usability?

  What I am personally still missing from povray are dynamically allocated
objects (where, the objects in povray are indeed dynamically allocated, but
their syntax makes them quite static) and references or pointers to handle
them.
  That would allow making, for example, linked lists, trees and so on.

  If those were implemented in an object-oriented way, it would be a plus.
Making them in a C way would just cause a lot of spaghetti code.

  And object orientedness would help making better scripts. Perhaps most
users will not get any advantage of it, but most include file makers
certainly could.
  Just think about the possibilites. Include files using common abstract
base classes could be used more or less seamlessly together. Clear
interfaces will make them easy to use and maintain, and information hiding
will help avoiding all namespace trashing problems (there's nothing more
annoying than two include files using identifiers with same names).

: Would it be easier to learn?

  It doesn't matter. You don't have to learn it if you don't want it. The
fact that a feature is there doesn't mean you have to learn and use it.
You can let it be and leave the usage to the "experts" :)

: Would it be fast to parse?

  Would it be slower? Does it matter?

:  Would it allow
: porting C/C++/Java programs to POV-script?

  Why anyone would want to do this? They do different things.

: In short : What are the _practical_ benefits for the scene description, the
: primary purpose of the POV scene description language?

  Ok, let's then remove identifiers and #while-loops and #macros. They have
no practical benefit, have they? You can do the same thing without them,
can't you?

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message