Nicolas George wrote:

> 
> I take the discussion somewhat in the middle, and maybe what I will write
> has already been written:
> 
I may have put it into too strong words, but things like isosurfaces and
functions are gibberish to me


> There is not really a contradiction between a ""real" programming
> language" and being able to write as simply as basic PoV SDL. For example:
> 
> use Colors;
> 
> scene [
> 
>   camera [
>     location => [ 2, 5, -3 ],
>     look_at => [ 0, 0, 0 ]
>   ],
> 
>   light_source [
>     [ 0, 10, -2 ],
>     White
>   ],
> 
>   union [
>     box [
>       [ -1, -1, -1 ], [ 1, 1, 1 ],
>       pigment => Red
>     ],
>     sphere [
>       [ 0, 1.5, 0 ], 0.5
>       pigment => Yellow
>     ]
>   ]
> 
> ]
> 
This looks perfectly doable.

The contradiction between POV SDL and ARPL (A Real Programming Language) is
the possibility to do something like this

object { Thingy scale 2 #if(Big) * 3 #end }


> I grant you that there is a little bit more comas than in original PoV
> SDL, but on the whole, it is no more difficult to learn and to write.
> 
> Well, unless I am mistaken, this is perfectly valid Perl.

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message