On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 23:32:40 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>In article <3c0e9dcf.9118910@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo 
>'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:
>
>>>If you had ever looked at the source code you would know that it is fairly
>>>modular (well, as modular as a 1980s C program could be)...
>>
>> Yep. So you can agree that it will not be a big mistake if a support
>> for dynamic module loading is added, where possible...
>
>No, I can't.  In fact I would probably be the front line getting all the
>annoyed or confused Mac users when they find a scene that doesn't render.
>Of course they would want me to port it.  Now imagine some idiot designing a
>module for Windows using some Windows API functions (if they are useful or
>needed, is not up to me but to the idiot).  Those scene would no longer work
>anywhere but on Windows.  What a perfect world that would be - there would
>be no more portability concerns ;-)
>
>Or, maybe I should draw a line in the sand and say:
>This feature will only make it into POV-Ray over my dead body!
> POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Ok, I understand that there are problems with it, but as this is a
really needed feature imho we should try to find a workaround... Why
not trying to make a fast, compiled script support (in a
meta-bytecode, like renderman). Or better, why not integrate renderman
shader support into povray (povman rulez!)?

Post a reply to this message