Christopher James Huff wrote:
>In article <web.3dcd54f1195c50e47efeba520[at]news.povray.org>,
> "normdoering" <nor### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
>> How about "plugins?" A lot of programs, like Corel Draw, have programs you
>> can plug in to Corel to do extra fancy stuff to pictures. I think they're
>> ..DLLs...? You write them in basic or C++ or pascal but they would do the
>> work of a macro (and more since they could read binary code) and do it
>> faster. That way you could avoid the work of turning POV into a compiler.
>> In POV you'd call them from the Scene Description File. Wouldn't that be a
>> necessary stepping stone towards compiling macros?
>
>That's been discussed as well, often in the same threads (you could also
>do a search for "plugin"). You can't do it in a platform independant
>way, and it introduces other problems, like having to make sure people
>have a plugin before they can render a scene and having to recompile
>plugins as well as the program for different platforms. It would be
>useful, but the cons outweigh the pros at this time.
>Another possibility that has been discussed would be to use compiled
>byte-code for a VM. This would be platform independant, but wouldn't
>really have any advantages over an include file that is compiled to byte
>codes when the scene is rendered. It would also be slower than native
>compiled code.
>
>Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
>POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
>http://tag.povray.org/
>

Meaning the platform independent philosophy you guys have is standing in the
way of writing faster and more efficient program.

normdoering

Post a reply to this message