Now you're nit picking. Povray is as much like programming as it is, but OO
would make it more like programming. Stop pretending you didn't know what he
meant!

-- 
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com

"Andreas Kaiser" <aka### [at] nurfuerspamde> wrote in message
news:rhp5301kh5ji7gtjk9tvljodi9cpi80hge@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:18:02 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >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.
>
> (Also at the risk that I'm again number one of your list)
> If you use POV-Ray and write the scenes yourself (without a modeler)
> there is no difference to 'programming'.
> POV-Ray is just an interpreter to translate SDL to a binary image.
> SDL is rather close to a subset of C, I always wonder whether the
> deviations are unfortunate coincidences.
> At least inheritance (of textures, objects, ...) is an OO feature of
> POV-Ray's SDL.
>
> -- 
> Andreas

Post a reply to this message