On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 00:43:01 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

As this thread is turning on the wrong way, I think it's the time to
stop it. I think that noone will be sad if I don't reply to this and
to other stuff about this thread. Sorry if I wasted your time

>In article <3c0ff1d7.41227138@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo 
>'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:
>
>> I mailed Warp, and he told me to post in the newsgroup, so I
>> configured my news reader, downloaded all the past msgs and since I
>> saw a similar post in povray.programming I posted my own stuff (about
>> pov4 since I knew that pov3.5 was fixed)...
>> And this is the story, now we have a huge huge thread and at the
>> beginning someone told not so nice things too, but I don't feel that I
>> did anything wrong.
>
>What surprises me is that all people who suggest features that they have
>seen in commercial packages always assume their suggestion to add this and
>that feature to POV-Ray is new.  I mean, come on, do you really think we are
>all that ignorant to not know what features other/commercial packages have?
>
>Besides, Warp's FAQ already explains why your suggestions 5 and 8.  The FAQ
>also explains that POV-Ray is not a sole triangle mesh renderer, yet you
>ignore this suggestion and suggest 7.
>
>The 3.5 announcement from Sept. 2000 which you read as you know the feature
>set in 3.5 is final (as you said yourself) mentions that patches that are
>not included were not included because they have problems.  This doesn't
>keep you from suggesting 3.
>
>Your suggestion 4 is in the manual.  At least in the 3.5 manual there is no
>more excuse for not at least checking the manual to find the focal blur
>feature to find out about how it works and that it already does what you
>suggest.
>
>And you must have been aware that suggestion 1, which would *break* any
>scene written before POV-Ray 4.0.  It really should not have been difficult
>to guess the response to such a suggestion (hence my idea that you are only
>looking for a flamewar in my first reply).
>
>Your second suggestion isn't more diplomatic.  After all you could have
>checked before saying something.  What you imply is that you know how it is
>working (or what it is not doing) without ever looking at it and that
>because it doesn't do what you think is fastest it is in your opinion slow.
>And last but not least you really insult every developer by saying "It's
>very important to speed up the whole thing."  Do you think we don't know
>that a ray tracer needs to be fast?
>
>I know myself that it isn't easy to always express ideas well in a foreign
>language.  In fact it can be extremely difficult.  Unfortunately that isn't
>your problem.
>
>What you did wrong is to simply ignore the documentation and source code,
>then post suggestions based on your random assumptions which you obviously
>had the ability to validate first, and then expect everybody to be happy
>that you suggested something everybody knew already.
>
>The fact that you did not bother to check is the only thing that upsets me.
>You have the ability to do so yet you decided to imply your ideas are so
>unique you should make the suggestion anyway ... doing so simply implies
>that you think you know better and thus we are just waiting for your
>suggestions.  in particular you then declare your suggestions a "wish list",
>which is not exactly an invitation to discussing the implementation but more
>the feasibility, which is precisely what happened.
>
>The lack of first checking the obvious was also what promoted me to suggest
>"Looks like you have a few misconceptions about POV-Ray", which might have
>prompted you to conclude that this might indeed be the case and you did
>simply overlook or not find some information.  However, you never asked for
>more information regarding what was wrong with your suggestions until now,
>so assumed you were completely serious about them as they were ...
>
>> Sorry for that, I still think that is not so easy
>> for a newbie to understand povray development process and features by
>> reading the faqs
>
>Well, the reason for this is very, very simple:  The users POV-Ray are are
>usually not programmers and thus the focus of FAQs is on the use and not the
>development of the program...
>
>____________________________________________________
>Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
>e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
>Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message