 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Ben Martens who wrote:
>I'm tossing around ideas for a .NET programming contest. One idea was to
>build a distributed POV system based on .NET. I've seen quite a few systems
>that do this with other architectures. In my random thoughts so far, I've
>come across two potential problems. If anyone can offer any advice I would
>really appreciate it:
One overall point to bear in mind is that it would be a good idea to
wait for pov 3.5 to become stable before attempting anything like this.
3.5 has a feature called "I/O restrictions" which you can use to prevent
malicious scene files from doing #fopen, #read and #write on any file on
the computer.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is great. Thank you for all the advice (and I'm always open to more!)
I just wanted to address the .NET question...
Chris wrote:
>> .NET? Cross Platform? I didn't think these could be held in the same
thought.
.NET, contrary to what the anti-Microsoft press would lead you to believe,
IS very cross platform. That is the beauty of it. I'm still learning about
it, but basically you can write in any language. Those chunks you make from
different languages can all interact in the same program seemlessly. This
is because .NET compiles to an intermediate language. After the program is
in that intermediate language, any platform with the .NET framework can run
it. Obviously they the Windows one is already working. I know a Linux port
is in the works, and I think a Mac one may be finished already(?). It's
really very neat technology. As I mentioned, I'm just starting to learn, but
the bottom half sounds similar to Java. Except that this actually works.
Sun had so many chances with Java but screwed them all up and never
delivered on their promises about true cross-platform, etc... but I don't
want to start a flame war.
Thanks again for the help,
-Ben
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Martens wrote:
> This is great. Thank you for all the advice (and I'm always open to more!)
> I just wanted to address the .NET question...
>
> Chris wrote:
> >> .NET? Cross Platform? I didn't think these could be held in the same
> thought.
>
> .NET, contrary to what the anti-Microsoft press would lead you to believe,
> IS very cross platform. That is the beauty of it. I'm still learning about
> it, but basically you can write in any language.
Well....
Yes and no.
Yes, the language of .NET is supposed to be cross-platform. The exact same way
the OS of WindowsNT/2K/XP is supposed to be cross-chip. Of course, how many
chips is XP shipping for? Alpha? PowerPC?...
And the same way that NT 3.5 and NT 4 had pluggable filesystem support. But how
long was it before Microsoft added a FAT32 pluggable filesystem for cross-OS
support? Can you say "never" boys and girls?
Anyway, the language is cross-platform, but the key libraries are not. That's a
gotcha to keep your eyes on. Even if someone else clones them, you still have
compatiblity issues like with WINE.
from http://java.oreilly.com/news/farley_0800.html
> Portability: The .NET core works on Windows only but theoretically supports
> development in many languages (once sub-/supersets of these languages have
> been defined and IL compilers have been created for them). Also, Net's SOAP
> capabilities will allow components on other platforms to exchange data messages
> with .NET components. While a few of the elements in .NET, such as SOAP and
> its discovery and lookup protocols, are provided as public specifications, the core
> components of the framework (IL runtime environment, ASP+ internals, Win
> Forms and Web Forms component "contracts", etc.) are kept by Microsoft, and
> Microsoft will be the only provider of complete .NET development and runtime
> environments. There has already been some pressure by the development
> community for Microsoft to open up these specifications, but this would be
> counter to Microsoft's standard practices.
>
But if you look at it as a replacement for working with COM/ActiveX (although
it really is just the next extension of those) and with VisualBasic, then it
seems like a huge stride in a better direction.
On Project Mono, the Linux effort, they mention that they're not interested in
much more than the development infrastructure part, and "We're not interested
in Passport or SQL"...
I think somewhere in summer they expect to have an initial cut with GUI stuff
working.
Oh, and from the Mono FAQ:
> Question 20: What is a 100% .NET application?
>
> A `100% .NET application' is one that only uses the APIs defined under the
> System namespace and does not use PInvoke. These applications would in
> theory run unmodified on Windows, Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, MacOS X and others.
>
--
Jon A. Cruz
http://www.geocities.com/joncruz/action.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3BE4206F.DE285497@geocities.com> , "Jon A. Cruz"
<jon### [at] geocities com> wrote:
>> .NET, contrary to what the anti-Microsoft press would lead you to believe,
>> IS very cross platform. That is the beauty of it. I'm still learning about
>> it, but basically you can write in any language.
>
> Well....
> Yes and no.
>
> Yes, the language of .NET is supposed to be cross-platform. The exact same way
> the OS of WindowsNT/2K/XP is supposed to be cross-chip. Of course, how many
> chips is XP shipping for? Alpha? PowerPC?...
>
> And the same way that NT 3.5 and NT 4 had pluggable filesystem support. But
> how long was it before Microsoft added a FAT32 pluggable filesystem for
> cross-OS support? Can you say "never" boys and girls?
>
> Anyway, the language is cross-platform, but the key libraries are not. That's
> a gotcha to keep your eyes on. Even if someone else clones them, you still
> have compatiblity issues like with WINE.
Especially as there is a well-established way to communicate over a network,
and it comes with two very common APIs of which either is supported on every
platform you can hook up to the Internet: Sockets or Streams
And you can run any light-weight high-level protocol over them. After all
the last thing desired is slower rendering because of a slow (=bloated)
protocol running over a modem connection so all render servers are only
waiting...
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in article 3be33d35@news.povray.org, Ben Martens at bma### [at] purdueedu
wrote on 11/2/01 6:41 PM:
> I'm tossing around ideas for a .NET programming contest. One idea was to
> build a distributed POV system based on .NET. I've seen quite a few systems
> that do this with other architectures. In my random thoughts so far, I've
> come across two potential problems. If anyone can offer any advice I would
> really appreciate it:
>
> 1) I know it's possible to render parts of an image using command line
> switches. However, if I send parts of a picture to different computers,
> this is going to mess up anti-aliasing, correct? I suppose this could be
> avoided by post-processing. Or is there a way to do anti-aliasing in this
> situation?
>
> 2) Do I need to write my own routines to stitch the picture back together,
> or is there any easy way to accomplish this?
>
> 3) I would like to support any platform that can run Povray. What is the
> best way to tell POV to render a file? Should I just pass it a command
> line? If that's the case, are all the command lines the same across
> platforms or would I need separate commands for Linus, Windows, etc.?
>
> Thank you for any help,
> -Ben
> http://bwmartens.tripod.com
I'm almost done with a little app I wrote in AppleScript which would allow
me to remote-render pov files via email... it's pretty basic - I can only
really render with the default settings, but tests have worked so far...
maybe I'll post my finished script in one of the binary folders here, if
there's an interest...
--
dan
http://hometown.aol.com/goofygrafx
(to reply, substitute 'home' for 'aol')
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Talk to these guys
http://www.imp.org/
Ben Martens wrote:
> I'm tossing around ideas for a .NET programming contest. One idea was to
> build a distributed POV system based on .NET. I've seen quite a few
> systems
> that do this with other architectures. In my random thoughts so far, I've
> come across two potential problems. If anyone can offer any advice I
> would really appreciate it:
>
> 1) I know it's possible to render parts of an image using command line
> switches. However, if I send parts of a picture to different computers,
> this is going to mess up anti-aliasing, correct? I suppose this could be
> avoided by post-processing. Or is there a way to do anti-aliasing in this
> situation?
>
> 2) Do I need to write my own routines to stitch the picture back
> together, or is there any easy way to accomplish this?
>
> 3) I would like to support any platform that can run Povray. What is the
> best way to tell POV to render a file? Should I just pass it a command
> line? If that's the case, are all the command lines the same across
> platforms or would I need separate commands for Linus, Windows, etc.?
>
> Thank you for any help,
> -Ben
> http://bwmartens.tripod.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The kindly Rev. overheard "Ben Martens" <bma### [at] purdueedu> saying
on 02 Nov 2001:
> I'm tossing around ideas for a .NET programming contest. One idea
> was to build a distributed POV system based on .NET.
You have, I trust, seen the latest jolly little prank where somebody
can snarf your whole Passport wallet, credit cards and all, by having
you read a message in hotmail?
If you've put any credit card data into Passport, cancel the cards now.
If you've put your email address into Passport, close your account and
get another ISP. If you've put your snailmail address into Passport,
burn down your house and move. It's the only way to be sure.
It *might* be sensible for people to use .NET if we could be sure it
would never be connected to any network. In fact, it was designed to
operate exactly that way, but when the security wizards at Microsoft
tried to lock it down, it somehow appeared on every website on the net.
I'd write more temperate, sensible reasons why I'd rather have my
privates squeezed in a vise than have anything to do with .NET, but the
NIMDA worm is clobbering my router again.
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
crispen at hiwaay dot net
Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Martens wrote:
>
> This is great. Thank you for all the advice (and I'm always open to more!)
> I just wanted to address the .NET question...
>
> Chris wrote:
> >> .NET? Cross Platform? I didn't think these could be held in the same
> thought.
>
> .NET, contrary to what the anti-Microsoft press would lead you to believe,
> IS very cross platform. That is the beauty of it. I'm still learning about
> it, but basically you can write in any language. Those chunks you make from
> different languages can all interact in the same program seemlessly. This
> is because .NET compiles to an intermediate language. After the program is
> in that intermediate language, any platform with the .NET framework can run
> it. Obviously they the Windows one is already working. I know a Linux port
> is in the works, and I think a Mac one may be finished already(?). It's
> really very neat technology. As I mentioned, I'm just starting to learn, but
> the bottom half sounds similar to Java. Except that this actually works.
> Sun had so many chances with Java but screwed them all up and never
> delivered on their promises about true cross-platform, etc... but I don't
> want to start a flame war.
>
> Thanks again for the help,
> -Ben
Not very nice to write an ultra-polemical text and then say
"But please don't answer".
Today, .NET is mono-platform. Dot. No other OS supports today. Dot.
What other OS will support in the future is unknown and should not
be relied upon.
You can't write in any language. You can write in a lot of .NETted
languages. Yes, they resemble a lot the languages they derived from
(Cobol.NET, ha!), but they're not the same. Important note: you
just can't use an existing program, even if it is written in a
langugage the .NET platform supports: You have to rewrite some parts
(or most?) of its code.
As you said, you're just starting to learn. .NET might well be a
nice platform, but don't take everything Microsoft marketing
tells you for granted. C#.NET, the existing .NET platform and
Windows, and ASP.NET. This is what is working right now, and it's
rather good. The rest of it is still a bit... vaporous.
The part about Java is pure Microsoft-induced non-sense. Java
is not perfectly cross-platform, granted. But it is infinitely
more than .NET. And it works (.NET too).
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The kindly Rev. overheard Adrien Beau <adr### [at] freefr> saying on
09 Nov 2001:
> You can't write in any language. You can write in a lot of .NETted
> languages. Yes, they resemble a lot the languages they derived from
> (Cobol.NET, ha!), but they're not the same. Important note: you
> just can't use an existing program, even if it is written in a
> langugage the .NET platform supports: You have to rewrite some
> parts (or most?) of its code.
Somehow, I think the rush into C# may be something well short of a
stampede. Can you say "Visual J++" boys and girls? Too many bright
young kids developed great little applications in VJ++ and were shocked
to discover they'd have to do a port to Java if they expected their
apps to interoperate with web browsers or run on other platforms, and
that the port was far from straightforward or easy.
Still, having learned Forth and the assembly language for several
vanished machines, I don't suppose I can reasonably say that it's a bad
idea to learn any programming language.
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
crispen at hiwaay dot net
Nature abhors a vacuum. Then again, so does my dog.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen" wrote:
>
> Somehow, I think the rush into C# may be something well short of a
> stampede.
I think it will happen, perhaps not as fast as Microsoft
marketing dreams of it. Of course, everybody knows that
C# is roughly Java, but without those bastar-- err nice
people at Sun going to court everytime you try to "innovate".
I have not tried it, but know colleagues who have, and it
is a vast improvement over VB they say. This is actually
one of the few good technologies of .NET.
> Still, having learned Forth and the assembly language for several
> vanished machines, I don't suppose I can reasonably say that it's a bad
> idea to learn any programming language.
Why program when Microsoft and friends can do it for you? ;-)
Just click there, please. And no, this is only possible to
do in the pro version...
Followup set to off-topic, but I don't read it, so mail me
directly if you prefer.
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
