 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nurfuerspam de> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree with you!
Nobody should *need* to be able to understand OO in order to write pov scenes,
in it's most basic form it should remain just a "scene description language",
i.e. a list of objects and visual properties of them.
I'm just talking about extending the options available outside of that,
specifically I'm thinking of writing a group of macros in a .inc file to allow
some OO style programming. But even I'm not convinced something like that
/should/ be introduced into the main pov code, my original question was just to
find out if anyone had done it, not to try to suggest it's a good idea ;)
Though structures would be useful.
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net...
>
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Mr. Flameproof
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:26:39 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
wrote:
>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
^
... even more ... :-)
>meant!
--
Andreas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> 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.
No matter what you say, POV-Ray's SDL is a programming language.
Adding new features to the language does not mean you *must* learn them.
It just means that they are available to those who find them useful.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:403332b3@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> Adding new features to the language does not mean you *must* learn
> them.
> It just means that they are available to those who find them useful.
If I want to read and understand those future OO-scenefiles, I'll have to
learn the new features. "Use" is more than just writing scenes.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:cjameshuff-60ACCD.21030117022004@news.povray.org...
> In article <4032b303$1@news.povray.org>,
> Tom Melly <pov### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
>
> > IMHO this comes down to 'pov ain't oo' - I don't think anyone denies
> > that oo capabilities in pov wouldn't be at the very least interesting,
> > but that's not the issue....
>
> Wha...? You're saying you don't think OO capabilities would be useful,
> or even interesting? And that you don't think anyone thinks it would be
> interesting? It's sure spawned a lot of discussion for something so
> utterly uninteresting...
Heh - even I can't work out wot I rote...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net...
>
As I implied ('capabilities'), and as Warp made explicit, the ideal would be an
expansion of the existing syntax rather than a replacement. However, ingo raises
a semi-valid point....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:Xns94937169A2BACseed7@news.povray.org...
> in news:403332b3@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
>
> > Adding new features to the language does not mean you *must* learn
> > them.
> > It just means that they are available to those who find them useful.
>
> If I want to read and understand those future OO-scenefiles, I'll have to
> learn the new features. "Use" is more than just writing scenes.
>
Wouldn't this be a valid objection to introducing any new feature in pov?
Besides, OO sdl would - at least in my imagination - have few surprises in
comparison to the current sdl syntax....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
> news:4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net...
>
>
> As I implied ('capabilities'), and as Warp made explicit, the ideal would be an
> expansion of the existing syntax rather than a replacement. However, ingo raises
> a semi-valid point....
Well, IMHO the whole idea of OO is to make the source more readable and thus
more maintainable. If Ingo's point is even a little bit valid I think OO
is better left out. At this point I cannot judge very well because I
still have no good perception of how an OOPOV would look, but perhaps
that is because I did not play anough with macros. FYI I do not program
in C++ or java, but I try to program as much in OO-style as I can in
Matlab. So in general I am in favor of OO.
Andrel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net>, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet>
wrote:
> 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.
You only say that because you don't know what it would add. It would not
add complexity, it would greatly simplify many things.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
