"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net...
>
> Dan P wrote:
>
> > After you parse the double-negative, he's actually saying the
opposite --
> > that everybody would find it, at very least, interesting.
>
> Not me. It would add another layer of complexity that I don't want to have
> to bother to learn. OO is for programming not a scene description
language.
> If I wanted to learn programming I would do that rather than using
POV-Ray.

I whole-heartedly disagree. OO would enable POV-Ray to evolve beyond a scene
description language. Also, OO would make POV-ray /easier/ to learn because
Object-Orientation is just that: a way to describe abstract "objects", which
is what makes /up/ a scene. The thing is, POV-Ray isn't for people who
aren't programming-minded. I'm not discounting other pieces of software like
3DSMax or anything, but for programming-minded individuals, the graphical
user-interface gets in the way of achieving our true intentions. There are
many alternatives to POV-Ray for non-programming types, but few (if any -- I
don't know of any others, anyway) alternatives to POV-Ray/MegaPov.

Post a reply to this message