Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> iceqb <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > I completly agree, POV-Ray shouldn't become an advanced programming language
> > like C++ or Java, but it should offer POV-artists a much more easier way of
> > making complex and realistic scenes.
>
>   One could argue that those two things are actually the same thing.
>
> > I don't want to have to learn C++ before using POV
>
>   A fully-featured object-oriented language does not automatically mean
> that you *must* learn *all* the intrinsic complicated details of the
> language in order to create scenes. I have always wondered why so many
> people seem to think like it does.
>
>   Let me present a comparison, using Windows:
>
>   Does a regular user, who just wants to surf the net and read his email,
> have to learn how to edit the Windows registry?
>   The answer is naturally: No.
>
>   Is it *bad* that Windows includes the means to edit the registry?
>   Of course not. Those who want to edit it can do so. Is that bad?

OK, I agree, but what if you have to deal with it once, just once, and you
haven't got a clue what to do, you could seriously damage your system.
So a little knowledge is always easy.

>   The fact that a feature *exists* does not mean that you *must* even
> know about its existence in order to use the program.

No, I don't know POV-Ray SDL inside-out to, but now, if I have to make
something that isn't done by anyone else, it's at least understandable,
and i don't have to code too large amounts of code for it. You're gonna get
confronted with the ins and outs of the code one day.

>
>   If fully object-oriented features are added to the scene description
> language, so what? It doesn't necessarily mean that you must learn to
> use them in order to create scenes.
>
>   You have to realize that there are two kinds of POV-Ray users: Artists
> and developers.
>   The idea with enhancing the language is that developers have better
> better tools to create easy-to-use libraries for the artists to use.
>
>   Wouldn't you like it if you could just write 'import("scene.3ds")' and
> magically the 3ds file is imported and rendered?
>   If the SDL is enhanced enough and if some developer creates such a
> library, then you can do exactly that, ie. import 3D-Studio files with
> a one-liner (without even having to know that something called
> "object-oriented programming" even exists).

If you're gonna make SDL an object-oriented language, you have to be
prepared
to start from scratch, because the current implementation isn't even close
to
that ideal. That means a new syntaxis with classes, structs, ... which
inevitably means relearning the whole deal!

Here's an other objection to extending SDL : security. With more
implementations
on file I/O in the SDL, it would be possible to overwrite crucial
systemfiles
(on Windows, doubtably on Linux), and corrupt the entire system. (thinking
virus or trojan!)

Another thing, what if you do rewrite SDL, and you do, as you say develop
libraries for artists, that means double shifts, wright because you can't
release it before the libraries, or no artist would understand it. (I might
be willing to learn, others won't)

>   So I more or less completely disagree with you: POV-Ray *needs* and
> would greatly benefit from a fully-featured programming language.

Post a reply to this message

iceqb <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> If you're gonna make SDL an object-oriented language, you have to be
> prepared
> to start from scratch, because the current implementation isn't even close
> to
> that ideal. That means a new syntaxis with classes, structs, ... which
> inevitably means relearning the whole deal!

  There's no reason why the new SDL could not resemble the current one.
  Some small changes may be necessary, but it shouldn't be something
unsurmountable. Besides, a compatibility import-mode for old SDL code
is also possible.

> Here's an other objection to extending SDL : security. With more
> implementations
> on file I/O in the SDL, it would be possible to overwrite crucial
> systemfiles
> (on Windows, doubtably on Linux), and corrupt the entire system. (thinking
> virus or trojan!)

  You can already do that with the current SDL (assuming you haven't
configured the file restrictions correctly), so what's the big deal?

> Another thing, what if you do rewrite SDL, and you do, as you say develop
> libraries for artists, that means double shifts, wright because you can't
> release it before the libraries, or no artist would understand it. (I might
> be willing to learn, others won't)

  You don't need libraries to create the basic scenes you can already
create with the current SDL. Just some small syntactical changes would
need to be learnt.

-- 

                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

iceqb wrote:
> on file I/O in the SDL, it would be possible to overwrite crucial
> systemfiles (on Windows, doubtably on Linux), 

Windows has as many, if not more, restrictions on overwriting crucial 
system files than Linux does. Linux has only the permission system to 
restrict it. Windows has System Recovery to fix it and the backup DLL 
directory that automatically fixes it as soon as you change one.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     The samba was clearly inspired
     by the margarita.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>   You don't need libraries to create the basic scenes you can already
> create with the current SDL. Just some small syntactical changes would
> need to be learnt.

I didn't look at it that way, i must admit. But if you're working with this
syntaxis day in day out, you eventually have to deal with the small anoying
stuff that come along with it. Not everything is premade somewhere, by some
programmer. You're gonna have to be able to write it yourself at some
point.

But if you're willing to learn, i think a new and improved SDL is quite
powerfull, but it just takes some more time to learn.

PS: Sorry for late responses, limited access to internet. :)

Post a reply to this message

HELLO. i am late but i am here.

the idea of an POV-XML, i think is to take control of the scene for
multiples reasons, enginering aplications, etc. Of course the pov syntax
will be the same for every one. Why not think about an universal language
for the 3d world like X3D. I never saw the x3d specification but the
philosophy i think is ok.

Post a reply to this message

raynmune thelord wrote:
> HELLO. i am late but i am here.
> 
> the idea of an POV-XML, i think is to take control of the scene for
> multiples reasons, enginering aplications, etc. Of course the pov syntax
> will be the same for every one. Why not think about an universal language
> for the 3d world like X3D. I never saw the x3d specification but the
> philosophy i think is ok.
> 

When will people understand that XML, and all derivatives, is
*DOCUMENT* oriented ? Not processing oriented !
If you are ready to drop all the algorithms from Pov SDL, then yes,
please go on and go back to DBKTrace 2.12...
It was a time were you had to write in C (or whatever) a code that
would generate the thousands sphere statement needed to make that
nice sea-shell...

I means, no #local, no #declare, not only of scalar, but also of
object, texture, and so!
No loop, no conditional statement...
I'm not even sure about animation...

Also, #include in XML are a PITA to perform, until you have a
portable network architecture for a valued-added repository.

I do not mind about an XML/X3D OUTPUT for povray (once the scene has
been parsed, just add the method to output that to a stream...), but
parsing... No Thanks. And for the output, I hope you have some
Multi-Tera-bytes drives availables.
(Do not talk about "compressed" XML/X3D... if you really want
compressed syntax, let's use the best one: PER-ASN.1, unaligned!
that's one is impressive, opened, but analysis by hand might take
you about two hours for a line once you're an expert of it...)

Last, about Universal 3D... there is no universal 3D usage... and 3D
 must be optimised, otherwise the volume of data is far too big.
Can you draw the conclusion by yourself ?

-- 
Eifersucht ist die Leidenschaft, die mit Eifer sucht, was Leiden
schafft.

Eco: -8.75 Soc: -6.72
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Post a reply to this message

raynmune thelord wrote:
> HELLO. i am late but i am here.
> 
> the idea of an POV-XML, i think is to take control of the scene for
> multiples reasons, enginering aplications, etc. Of course the pov syntax
> will be the same for every one. Why not think about an universal language
> for the 3d world like X3D. I never saw the x3d specification but the
> philosophy i think is ok.
> 
> 

It should be no problem to write a xsl transformation that makes
POV-Ray code out of some xml scene description.

Post a reply to this message