 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sir Charles W. Shults III <aic### [at] cfl rrcom> wrote:
> Personally, I think that simpler is better here. Most of what I model I
> get done very nicely with boxes, cylinders, etc. More complex shapes are
> fine, but you don't often really need them. POVray should stick with the
> K.I.S.S. principle wherever possible.
So let's take off the complex primitives from those who use them just
because *you* don't use them?
No.
The fact that you are S.S. doesn't mean everyone else is.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It was just a joke. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote in message
news:3c9523b7@news.povray.org...
<snip>
Heh-heh.
Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone will
think you meant it....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> The
> merge shape could be replaced with an option for the union shape
So we reduce the number of reserved keywords by 0 and we force the parser
to make a much more complicated task (it starts by creating a union, but
in the middle of parsing it suddenly has to convert it to merge).
>, sor
> could be an option for lathes,
Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).
> The prism and polygon primitives could be made
> into one primitive, or prism, sor, and lathe could be combined into a
> single sweep primitive.
You said that this would simplify the syntax. I don't see how. If all of
them are made into one sweep primitive, we end up getting one reserved
keyword more than currently. I don't see how this makes anything simpler.
> Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary
> triangles.
And how do we differentiate between them?
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It is interesting that you seem to really take offense to my opinion,
and then resort to attempts at insult. This is an open forum discussion. I
am not suggesting that the authors remove anything, but I have learned
something useful about your state of mind.
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote :
>
> do_what_i_mean...
I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended it
to do instead of what I told it to do...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c9605df$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended it
> to do instead of what I told it to do...
>
... and I would pay even more for a version of Word that did what I told it to
do, instead of what it thinks I intended it to do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Follow-ups to P.O.T.
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3c960740$1@news.povray.org...
> "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
> news:3c9605df$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >
> > I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended
it
> > to do instead of what I told it to do...
> >
>
> ... and I would pay even more for a version of Word that did what I told
it to
> do, instead of what it thinks I intended it to do.
You only -think- you wanted it to do what you told it to do, you really
wanted it to do what it did. It is a fundamental law of nature that what
Bill Gates thinks is what you want. Any imaginations you have that might
dispute this law are simply wrong.
"MicroSoft: what do we want you to do today?"
PS: I was able to work every single word of the "Bunnies" song into a
conversation at work last night. I felt inordinately proud of myself even
though no one noticed...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone
will
> think you meant it....
I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't understand
but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe he
is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried to
make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3 ideas that will change the povray world:
1.
I think we should port povray to Java instead. And then we should start a
render farm that runs on java-enabled phones. So many people with java
enabled phones, you wouldn't believe it!
2.
And additionally we should start thinking about porting povray to commodore
64. I bet many people use their commodore 64 on a daily basis. They'd be
very grateful if you'd do the job.
3.
Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR (Plug 'n Render)
--
Apache
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
apa### [at] yahoocom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3c96143c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> 3.
> Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR (Plug 'n Render)
> --
AMD Athlon XP already does that! (XP= eXtraPov, oh yeah baby!)
Maan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c95fd1b@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> So we reduce the number of reserved keywords by 0 and we force the parser
> to make a much more complicated task (it starts by creating a union, but
> in the middle of parsing it suddenly has to convert it to merge).
The goal is not to reduce the number of keywords, where did you get that
idea? I'm talking about simplifying the syntax.
And it wouldn't be nearly as complex as you imply...actually, it would
probably be simpler, they already share most of their code. You wouldn't
want to convert from one type of object to another, that *would* be a
stupid way to do it.
> Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
> has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).
Not complicated at all, and I'm not trying to reduce the number of
keywords.
> You said that this would simplify the syntax. I don't see how. If all of
> them are made into one sweep primitive, we end up getting one reserved
> keyword more than currently. I don't see how this makes anything simpler.
Stop counting reserved keywords, it is useless.
One shape rather than three. Easier to maintain, easier to learn, easier
to extend with additional sweep types.
> > Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary
> > triangles.
>
> And how do we differentiate between them?
Smooth triangles have normals, obviously.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c96143c$1@news.povray.org>,
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> 1.
> I think we should port povray to Java instead. And then we should start a
> render farm that runs on java-enabled phones. So many people with java
> enabled phones, you wouldn't believe it!
There is already at least one Java raytracer, you know...
> 3.
> Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR (Plug 'n Render)
Do you really want it from Intel? I think I'd like Motorola or AMD
better. Intel would probably end up rendering spheres as boxes or
something... ;-)
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c960fd3@news.povray.org>, "Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk>
wrote:
> I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't understand
> but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them.
The parts about ASM and forward raytracing could be blamed on ignorance,
but the WinAmp plugin, Lego brick and Shreck primitives...well,
everything else about it gives it away as a joke, obviously enough that
no smileys are necessary. Laughing at someone's joke isn't making fun of
them.
> Maybe he is a boy.
This really doesn't look like it was written by some little kid. The
vocabulary and level of knowledge really doesn't match...how many
*adults* do you know who know about assembler, refraction,
dodecahedrons, buckyballs, and forward vs. backwards raytracing, or use
words like deprecated and intuitiveness?
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Apache wrote:
> 2. And additionally we should start thinking about porting povray
> to commodore 64. I bet many people use their commodore 64 on a
> daily basis. They'd be very grateful if you'd do the job.
You mean there ISN'T a C64 version of POV?! For shame...
- Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c960032$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Cheers!
>
CJH is getting it in the ear as well. I think someone got out of bed the
wrong side this a.m.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> The goal is not to reduce the number of keywords, where did you get that
> idea?
From this:
> I'm talking about simplifying the syntax.
More keywords means more complex syntax. Less keywords means simpler syntax.
Although the number of keywords does not change with the proposed change,
the number of keywords you _need to write_ in order to get a merge increases
by one. This means that when you want a merge, you need to write to keywords
instead of one.
This only increases complexity.
Why "union { make_it_merge_instead ... }" would be simpler than just
"merge { ... }" ?
>> Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
>> has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).
> Not complicated at all, and I'm not trying to reduce the number of
> keywords.
Again, you need to write two keywords when one would suffice. Why writing
*both* keywords, ie "lathe" and "sor" would be simpler than writing just
one, "sor"?
> One shape rather than three. Easier to maintain, easier to learn, easier
> to extend with additional sweep types.
One shape with three different options. I don't see how that is easier
to learn or use.
What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
"object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?
>> > Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary
>> > triangles.
>>
>> And how do we differentiate between them?
> Smooth triangles have normals, obviously.
So the parser needs to read three vectors, and if there are additional
vectors, it has to change the meaning of the three already read vectors.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sir Charles W. Shults III <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
> It is interesting that you seem to really take offense to my opinion,
> and then resort to attempts at insult.
It's just that I really don't understand what is the idea behind making
the POV-Ray parser more limited and harder to use. I don't see any advantage
in this.
I don't understand why some people seem to think that versatility is a
bad thing, when it isn't.
I use the POV-Ray features rather extensively, and it would deprive me of
many great tools if they were taken away all of a sudden.
It would be different if the extra features were an overburden (eg. they
would make rendering slower), but they aren't.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Maybe he is a boy.
>
> This really doesn't look like it was written by some little kid. The
> vocabulary and level of knowledge really doesn't match...how many
> *adults* do you know who know about assembler, refraction,
> dodecahedrons, buckyballs, and forward vs. backwards raytracing, or use
> words like deprecated and intuitiveness?
You have some good points, but on the other hand, there are "outsider"
people. I remember my own childhood. I got hooked on programming when I was
8 years old.. I got more isolated from other children than the majority.. I
learned a lot about computers, but I was still a child.. So I knew a lot of
technical words, but my ideas were not always those of an adult.
And it's possible my "isolation" has made me less skillled to understand
jokes.. :o)
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> A common beginner's mistake. Try:
>
> // decrease step for higher quality
> #local Step = 20;
> intersection{
> box{0,1 translate -0.5}
> #local M = 0;
> #while(M <= 360)
> #local N = 0;
> #while(N <= 360)
> plane{x,1/2 rotate z*M rotate y*N}
> #local N = N + Step;
> #end
> #local M = M + Step;
> #end
> pigment{Red}
> }
ROTFLMAO!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, when you can express that clearly and with civility, we will talk.
I have actually learned some things from your older posts that did not
include jabs. I am not advocating the removal of features, I am expressing
my opinion that complicating things rarely makes them better.
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c9657b2$1@news.povray.org...
> Well, when you can
When you learn that you should include some hint of who you are
responding to and what part of their post you are responding to you will
have a chance of being taken seriously.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c9658d0@news.povray.org...
> When you learn that you should include some hint of who you are
> responding to and what part of their post you are responding to you will
> have a chance of being taken seriously.
You are correct in this, Bill- I removed all attribution, and that is my
mistake. As for being taken seriously, I would never expect that in a forum
where we are all strings of text, and where people seem to think that they
can act in any manner without some sort of repercussions, simply because
they do not choose to recognize that there are real people behind these
postings. Warp's attack was not a proper act.
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3c964780@news.povray.org...
<snip>
Hmm, well I don't agree with the idea of removing object identifiers, etc.,
but it's not entirely without precedence.
3.5 has been developed with the principle of leaving many essential jobs to
macros rather than building the support directly into the engine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Could someone PLEASE port povray to GW-BASIC?
If you want to download that funky dos program on-line:
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/gwbasic.zip
I'll remove the thing in about a week. Download it and port it and you'll
get famous.
--
Apache
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
apa### [at] yahoocom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c964780@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> It's just that I really don't understand what is the idea behind making
> the POV-Ray parser more limited and harder to use. I don't see any advantage
> in this.
I don't recall anyone seriously recommending this. Well, except for that
one person who wanted to turn everything into XML...
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c964694@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> More keywords means more complex syntax. Less keywords means simpler syntax.
That is just plain wrong. There are very simple languages with many
keywords, and extremely complex ones with very few (counting symbols as
keywords...there are languages that rely on symbols alone).
Have you actually seriously considered my ideas? It doesn't look like it.
> What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
> "object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?
It isn't anything like that, I don't see how you could possibly
interpret it that way. Go back and read my original message again.
> > Smooth triangles have normals, obviously.
>
> So the parser needs to read three vectors, and if there are additional
> vectors, it has to change the meaning of the three already read vectors.
If you want to keep the current pattern of "point1, normal1, point2,
normal2, point3, normal3", then yes. Quite simple really.
Or you could swap things around a bit and use "p1, p2, p3, n1, n2, n3",
which would be even simpler to parse.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
>> What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
>> "object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?
> It isn't anything like that, I don't see how you could possibly
> interpret it that way. Go back and read my original message again.
You said that several "sweep" object should be grouped inside the same
object, and the type of the "sweep" should be told separately (if I
understood correctly).
So you would say something like "sweep { sor ... }" or "sweep { prism ... }".
This means that you will be grouping several primitives into one block,
just like what 'object' does with primitives. Compare my example to
"object { sor ... }" or "object { prism ... }". There isn't much difference.
You don't use the 'object' keyword when you don't need to, do you? I'm sure
that you don't use the 'material' or 'texture' keywords unless you need to.
So why force the user to use an additional 'sweep' keyword when there's no
need for that?
> If you want to keep the current pattern of "point1, normal1, point2,
> normal2, point3, normal3", then yes. Quite simple really.
> Or you could swap things around a bit and use "p1, p2, p3, n1, n2, n3",
> which would be even simpler to parse.
Perhaps.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> I don't recall anyone seriously recommending this. Well, except for that
> one person who wanted to turn everything into XML...
At least it would be more versatile with XML... ;)
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ditto.
"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3c964b37$1@news.povray.org...
> > > Maybe he is a boy.
> >
> > This really doesn't look like it was written by some little kid. The
> > vocabulary and level of knowledge really doesn't match...how many
> > *adults* do you know who know about assembler, refraction,
> > dodecahedrons, buckyballs, and forward vs. backwards raytracing, or use
> > words like deprecated and intuitiveness?
>
> You have some good points, but on the other hand, there are "outsider"
> people. I remember my own childhood. I got hooked on programming when I
was
> 8 years old.. I got more isolated from other children than the majority..
I
> learned a lot about computers, but I was still a child.. So I knew a lot
of
> technical words, but my ideas were not always those of an adult.
>
> And it's possible my "isolation" has made me less skillled to understand
> jokes.. :o)
>
> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3c960fd3@news.povray.org...
> > Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone
> will
> > think you meant it....
>
> I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't
understand
> but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe he
> is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried to
> make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.
Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
*too* much trouble :-)
Corey
> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3c9678b0$1@news.povray.org...
> Could someone PLEASE port povray to GW-BASIC?
>
> If you want to download that funky dos program on-line:
> http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/gwbasic.zip
10 CLS
20 COOL!
30 I havn't seen that program is a long time.
40 That was the first program I learned to program in.
50 I'll definetly have to download it and play.
60
70 Thanks
80 Corey
90 END
> I'll remove the thing in about a week. Download it and port it and you'll
> get famous.
>
>
> --
> Apache
> http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
> apa### [at] yahoocom
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Heh. "*Too* much trouble"? As in, hmm, maybe like FLAME WAR kind of trouble?
Nah. @@:-)
"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote in message
news:3c969572@news.povray.org...
>
> "Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
> news:3c960fd3@news.povray.org...
> > > Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance
anyone
> > will
> > > think you meant it....
> >
> > I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't
> understand
> > but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe
he
> > is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried
to
> > make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.
>
> Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
> groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
> smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
> *too* much trouble :-)
>
> Corey
>
> > Regards,
> > Hugo
> >
> >
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
> groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
> smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
> *too* much trouble :-)
Ohhh... ;o) Now I can laugh about it.. Well, mr. Corey, heheh.. I just
think you mixed some strange ideas with some interesting ones, and I saw no
reason why you would try to pull off all that as a joke..
Hrrrmm........ :o)
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3c964780@news.povray.org...
> It's just that I really don't understand what is the idea behind making
> the POV-Ray parser more limited and harder to use. I don't see any
advantage
> in this.
> I don't understand why some people seem to think that versatility is a
> bad thing, when it isn't.
> I use the POV-Ray features rather extensively, and it would deprive me
of
> many great tools if they were taken away all of a sudden.
> It would be different if the extra features were an overburden (eg. they
> would make rendering slower), but they aren't.
This is how I feel about UI design. Some people argue that more options in
a UI make it less intuitive and harder to use. Personally, I like having
options. Yes, I actually _do_ use the File menu, the little square with the
'x', and even the control menu (what are they calling that these days?), not
to mention Task Manager, all to close programs! No, I do _not_ feel less
efficient for having those options available!
It's the same with the language syntax. There's nothing wrong with having a
variety of ways to accomplish things. POV does not have to be RISC to be
effective.
...Chambers
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 2/9/2002
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> > I don't recall anyone seriously recommending this. Well, except for that
> > one person who wanted to turn everything into XML...
>
> At least it would be more versatile with XML... ;)
I want it in ASN.1 !
and all decoding rules MUST be supported...
you just indicate the file format with a switch in the command line...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote
> That is just plain wrong. There are very simple languages with many
> keywords, and extremely complex ones with very few (counting symbols as
> keywords...there are languages that rely on symbols alone).
I second that.
Probably, the best example ever existed is Tcl vs. Perl. These two languages
have not only comparable number of keywords, they even share some keywords,
and yet there exists *vast* difference in complexity. While the former is
very simple (by its underlying principles, with its strings; much like LISP
with its 'pairs'), the latter is considered a 'write-only' language even by
its die-hard adepts. Please note: I'm telling *nothing* about these
languages' powers :-) Follow-ups to povray.flame-wars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] rucom> wrote in message
news:3c972f84$1@news.povray.org...
> Probably, the best example ever existed is Tcl vs. Perl. These two languages
> have not only comparable number of keywords, they even share some keywords,
> and yet there exists *vast* difference in complexity. While the former is
> very simple (by its underlying principles, with its strings; much like LISP
> with its 'pairs'), the latter is considered a 'write-only' language even by
> its die-hard adepts. Please note: I'm telling *nothing* about these
> languages' powers :-) Follow-ups to povray.flame-wars.
>
I don't know anything about TCL, but IMHO the problem with Perl seems to often
stem from wilfull obfustication on the part of its users.
With good comments and nice var names, there's no reason it should be hard to
read - even RE can be made legible with the x modifier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Corey Woodworth wrote:
>
> 1. Everyone knows pov is slow as molasses. Lets just throw out the old
> deprecated C and convert the whole program to ASM. Everyone has Pentiums now
> anyway.
AHEM! Excuse me, but I happen to have a G3, not a Pentium, thank you.
However, if you like, feel free to download the source code and convert
it all to ASM.
> 2. With the speed afforded to us from improvement number one we can now
> throw out all the old hacks that give us refection and refraction in favor
> for a much better system: Forward ray tracing.
Better how? I think you need to do a little more math here; I seriously
doubt that any speed increase from converting to ASM (even if that were
practical) would offset what you suggest. Besides, POV-Ray still
wouldn't be fast enough; people would use the extra speed to make media
skies and absurdly high radiosity counts and complex isosurfaces and
stuff and still be able to finish rendering them before next month.
> 3. I don't know about you guys but this typing crap is hard.
I dunno, you seem to have managed pretty well to make this post.
> It's the new
> millennium and time for a GUI. Lets mimic a proven formula for productivity
> and intuitiveness.
You also seem to have as poor a grasp of computing history and UI design
as math; scripting has produced a great deal over the years and doesn't
lend itself to more graphical interfaces than the one we already have.
> Bryce!
*falls over laughing*
> 4. I like listening to music when I'm modeling, but it's such a pain to
> alt-tab back and forth between pov and winamp, why don't we make pov a
> winamp plug-in?
Oh. Poor baby. Considered making a playlist? Or hmm, I dunno, buying a
stereo or something that makes sense to the rest of the free world? WTF.
> 5. Speaking of winamp, isn't about time that pov's UI was skinnable?!
You're using Windows, so look into Windowshade (IIRC). There's not much
point in making POV-Ray individually skinnable.
> 6. CSG would be a lot easier if we had more primitives to work with. Cubes
> and spheres were great in preschool but the world is a complex place and we
> need complex shapes to describe it. Here are my suggestions for some new
> primitives: Dodecahedron, Buckyball, Leggo brick, Shreck
Well, having more polyhedra could be useful, though I doubt that they
would find nearly as much use as the existing primitives. They'd
probably end up only being used in their original forms as spaceship
fuel tanks or something.
Of course, you could add a bunch to an include file (if there isn't
already a file like that, which there probably is) and then include the
file in your scenes and use the included shapes as though they were part
of POV-Ray.. which is one reason why include files exist in the first place.
> 7. Its so much fun to return to the pov site after the beta expires to get
> the next one! It makes sure I visit regularly and I have the newest version.
> I think that the final version should expire as well, even if there aren't
> any new versions to download.
"..."
Um.. put the download page in your Favorites and subscribe to it, or
whatever that's called, so that IE will tell you when it changes? Or
really, if you like visiting the POV-Ray site THAT much, just check it
every morning?
(Please tell me you're joking with some of these.)
> 8. While I commend whoever wrote the tutorials, FAQs, and docs that come
> with pov we all know that nobody reads them.
Speak for yourself (and I half-suspect that you are).
> How about we convert them all
> to wav files? If pov becomes a winamp plugin then it would integrate nicely.
Sounds great. You'll pay for my DSL, right? On second thought, just make
it a T1.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (Please tell me you're joking with some of these.)
All of them Xplo....
Forgive me if I'm making an incorrect assumption, but irony doesn't work
very well when the language it's being done in isn't your native
tongue...
:)
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:04:27 -0600, Christopher James Huff
<chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
>how many
>*adults* do you know who know about assembler, refraction,
>dodecahedrons, buckyballs, and forward vs. backwards raytracing, or use
>words like deprecated and intuitiveness?
Me :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:20:31 -0600, Tom Melly wrote:
> A common beginner's mistake. Try:
>
> // decrease step for higher quality
> #local Step = 20;
> intersection{
> box{0,1 translate -0.5}
> #local M = 0;
> #while(M <= 360)
> #local N = 0;
> #while(N <= 360)
> plane{x,1/2 rotate z*M rotate y*N}
> #local N = N + Step;
> #end
> #local M = M + Step;
> #end
> pigment{Red}
> }
if only this code worked...
#end
<----ERROR
Parse Error: String too long.
--
David
smuchrusher <at> ameritech <dot> net
ICQ#: 118347772
3:25pm up 8 days, 18:40, 2 users, load average: 0.34, 0.17, 0.06
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <05pd9uc6ebqtfb6981tqcf7fbtalu431c4@4ax.com>,
Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> >how many
> >*adults* do you know who know about assembler, refraction,
> >dodecahedrons, buckyballs, and forward vs. backwards raytracing, or use
> >words like deprecated and intuitiveness?
>
> Me :)
Well, I myself fit in that category. I'm only 19 years old, and have
been using POV and programming graphics for several years now. I've even
written a raytracer of my own. ;-)
But my question was "how many do you know", not "who is the youngest you
know". I've learned not to even bother with the simplest explanations
about graphics or programming to most people in "real life". I only know
of 3 people who I think would understand raytracing... (an uncle, a
cousin, and my grandfather, nobody anywhere near my age)
The point I tried to make was this: It would be extremely unlikely for
anybody to simultaneously be ignorant enough to seriously make those
suggestions, and still be knowledgeable enough to write them, so it must
have been a non-serious post by a person with far above-average
knowledge.
The age doesn't really matter in this case, but people in their teens or
younger who are even interested in this kind of thing are very rare, and
I didn't think the wording of the message matched that age level.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would fall into that category, as would a few of my friends who I've
'converted'.
Furthermore, in some cases it can be difficult to tell what 'age level'
something is written from. For example, there are some things in Corey's
post that were _deliberately_ made to seem rather childish and silly ("How
come POV doesn't have pretty arrows?"), and on the other hand, fairly young
people can write at an advanced level.
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
> The age doesn't really matter in this case, but people in their teens or
> younger who are even interested in this kind of thing are very rare, and
> I didn't think the wording of the message matched that age level.
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
> POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
> TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David F." <smu### [at] ameritechnet> wrote in message
news:pan### [at] ameritechnet...
> if only this code worked...
>
> #end
>
>
> <----ERROR
>
>
> Parse Error: String too long.
>
I don't get it. need... more... coffeee....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote in message <3c95fc8d$1@news.povray.org>...
>
>Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone
will
>think you meant it....
A surprising number of people took my "modest proposal" of a few years back
seriously. I suppose it should be considered a hazard for those of us who
make modest proposals.
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Apache wrote in message <3c96143c$1@news.povray.org>...
>3 ideas that will change the povray world:
>
>1.
>I think we should port povray to Java instead. And then we should start a
>render farm that runs on java-enabled phones. So many people with java
>enabled phones, you wouldn't believe it!
Now there's an idea: a worm that infects Java-enabled cell phones, and
hijacks their processing power to do distributed rendering of POV-Ray
scenes. Just imagine how fast a Beowulf cluster consisting of a million
cell phones could do skyvase!
>2.
>And additionally we should start thinking about porting povray to commodore
>64. I bet many people use their commodore 64 on a daily basis. They'd be
>very grateful if you'd do the job.
I've been thinking about doing exactly this. Does anyone know of a C
compiler that will output code for the C64?
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Corey Woodworth wrote in message <3c969572@news.povray.org>...
>Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
>groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
>smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
>*too* much trouble :-)
No more than usual. For a similar thread with a comparable response, see
http://news.povray.org/povray.general/1564/
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:31:49 -0500, Mark Wagner wrote:
> I've been thinking about doing exactly this. Does anyone know of a C
> compiler that will output code for the C64?
The only one I'm aware of actually ran on the C64 and was K&R only.
--
#macro R(L P)sphere{L __}cylinder{L P __}#end#macro P(_1)union{R(z+_ z)R(-z _-z)
R(_-z*3_+z)torus{1__ clipped_by{plane{_ 0}}}translate z+_1}#end#macro S(_)9-(_1-
_)*(_1-_)#end#macro Z(_1 _ __)union{P(_)P(-_)R(y-z-1_)translate.1*_1-y*8pigment{
rgb<S(7)S(5)S(3)>}}#if(_1)Z(_1-__,_,__)#end#end Z(10x*-2,.2)camera{rotate x*90}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2002 13:26:41 -0500, Ron Parker wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:31:49 -0500, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> I've been thinking about doing exactly this. Does anyone know of a C
>> compiler that will output code for the C64?
>
> The only one I'm aware of actually ran on the C64 and was K&R only.
Okay, I was wrong. Here's one: http://www.cc65.org/
--
#macro R(L P)sphere{L __}cylinder{L P __}#end#macro P(_1)union{R(z+_ z)R(-z _-z)
R(_-z*3_+z)torus{1__ clipped_by{plane{_ 0}}}translate z+_1}#end#macro S(_)9-(_1-
_)*(_1-_)#end#macro Z(_1 _ __)union{P(_)P(-_)R(y-z-1_)translate.1*_1-y*8pigment{
rgb<S(7)S(5)S(3)>}}#if(_1)Z(_1-__,_,__)#end#end Z(10x*-2,.2)camera{rotate x*90}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
