"Tony[B]" wrote:
 
>    I admire your attempt to motivate change. It seems like you invested a
> lot of time writing this. 

Not even on the same order with the time I spent researching those
principles. Which are not exclusively applicable to PoV.

Thank you, nevertheless.

>    If you want things to be more like you plan them, then get your hands
> dirty and code till you wear your fingers down to a nub - prove that it can
> be done. 

Well... What "it"? Implementing these principles in software design? It
can be done, if my current pet project, the Quill, is any indication. It
is built using exactly the same approach: self-parsing, interacting,
uniform but polymorphic objects, even though it is not a raytracer. (It
would not be hard to "stuff" the Quill with raytracing routines, just to
"prove" the point - but it is not written in C++, so adapting PoV to its
framework would be kind of pointless - the result will be not nearly as
portable as PoV is.)

> most of it coding, not researching. Also, a wish-list such as yours sounds
> much sweeter to the ears with some papers/pseudo-code/code to back it up.

It's not about a "wish list". It's about having the same features but
organized in a way that would enhance the whole.

It seems that this is the most frequent misunderstanding so far:
thinking that I was complaining on features. Look closer: all "features"
I mentioned are really not the way something is implemented; they are
about how objects *connect* in the scene. It's about how to make
everything connect more efficiently and smoothly. Wouldn't a lubricated
machine run better than dry gears?
 
>    Second, it would have also been wise on your part to read previous
> discussions on the matter of OO'ing the POV SDL, to find out why the Team is
> not persuing implementing it yet. 

I did. What I read there is "yet". :)

Look, I did similar frameworks myself. They are certainly not a trivial
piece of programming, but they can be done and no one is going to
convince me it can't - as long as I can see my own code doing it in
front of my nose.

> things we've read before, and might have found out that such a thing is in
> the pipeline for indefinite future versions.

(It was proposed exactly for that future version.)

Post a reply to this message