I've been following the "new language SDL" thread for a while, but I 
don't know if this topic has been covered.

Having been a fan of Borland, and now a user of Visual Studio, I would 
like to present the notion of using a language-independent framework, 
like the .net framework and then document it so well that us users can 
write our own front-end languages, a la Visual Basic, C#, J#, ASP.NET, etc.

So there would be the ".POV Framework" and then C#.POV, J#.POV, Visual 
POV...

Also, if I want to create a post-processor library, or an animation 
utility, or a complicated subroutine that can create a random moon for 
example, then the compiled libraries could work with all the 
implementations.

Maybe (and this is a big maybe) we could boil down the SDL to a set of 
libraries that can be plugged in to Visual Studio, or used with Java or 
Perl, etc.



I know this is a lot of work, but it would get the POV team out of the 
language biz and let them focus on thing like rendering engines and 
speed optimizations.

Sorry if this has been brought up previously, but I missed it if it was.


-- 
---
Bryan Valencia

- I'd rather live with false hope than with false despair.

Post a reply to this message

I must admit to liking the idea of a POV library... especially a .POV. Being 
a software engineer by trade thats not really surprising!

For many of us hard core coders that wouldn't be a bad solution. But it 
would require a .NET developement environment and they don't come cheap 
(unless your boss provides one like mine does!)

POVRay has always been free and I hope it will remain so. If it suddenly 
requires an expensive developement suite like VisualStudio that blows the 
whole "free" thing out of the water.

Nice idea, but I doubt it will fly.

Rarius


"Bryan Valencia" <no### [at] waycom> wrote in message 
news:47040096$1@news.povray.org...
> I've been following the "new language SDL" thread for a while, but I don't 
> know if this topic has been covered.
>
> Having been a fan of Borland, and now a user of Visual Studio, I would 
> like to present the notion of using a language-independent framework, like 
> the .net framework and then document it so well that us users can write 
> our own front-end languages, a la Visual Basic, C#, J#, ASP.NET, etc.
>
> So there would be the ".POV Framework" and then C#.POV, J#.POV, Visual 
> POV...
>
> Also, if I want to create a post-processor library, or an animation 
> utility, or a complicated subroutine that can create a random moon for 
> example, then the compiled libraries could work with all the 
> implementations.
>
> Maybe (and this is a big maybe) we could boil down the SDL to a set of 
> libraries that can be plugged in to Visual Studio, or used with Java or 
> Perl, etc.
>
>
>
> I know this is a lot of work, but it would get the POV team out of the 
> language biz and let them focus on thing like rendering engines and speed 
> optimizations.
>
> Sorry if this has been brought up previously, but I missed it if it was.

Post a reply to this message

I was just thinking of divorcing the SDL from the scene/render/animation 
engine in such a way that you can create languages that generate code 
that can be 'executed' by a CLR 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Runtime).

So the POV engine would become a "Framework" that no longer parses 
strings, but instead just executes some minimalist bytecode.  Then the 
"languages" just have to create the SDL bytecode and pass it to the .POV 
CLR.

This kind of architecture could lead to the same kind of environment we 
have in .net today... a compiled C# object can be easily dropped into a 
J# application, or VB.NET application (true language independence).  Now 
I know that this does not (directly) address the Linux and Mac worlds 
(sorry) - but the idea holds true regardless.

The Rendering engine should accept only strictly formatted bytecode.

Languages should be completely abstracted from the renderer.


This would open the doors to things like...

Webservices
Web-based rendering
network job-sharing (want to use 30 PCs to render your animation? want 
to have a dedicated prerenderer, renderer, and post-processor?)

Oh yeah, and if POV could be plugged into Visual Studio (and the 
linux/mac equivalents), you get...
. source control integration
. database access (want to store 20,000 asteroids in an Oracle database?)
. Web access (want to access Google Maps to get map data for a render?)
. Complex math, variable scopes, recursion, inheritance, "AI"

I think the possibilities are pretty limitless.


Rarius wrote:
> I must admit to liking the idea of a POV library... especially a .POV. Being 
> a software engineer by trade thats not really surprising!
> 
> For many of us hard core coders that wouldn't be a bad solution. But it 
> would require a .NET developement environment and they don't come cheap 
> (unless your boss provides one like mine does!)
> 
> POVRay has always been free and I hope it will remain so. If it suddenly 
> requires an expensive developement suite like VisualStudio that blows the 
> whole "free" thing out of the water.
> 
> Nice idea, but I doubt it will fly.
> 
> Rarius
> 
> 
> "Bryan Valencia" <no### [at] waycom> wrote in message 
> news:47040096$1@news.povray.org...
>> I've been following the "new language SDL" thread for a while, but I don't 
>> know if this topic has been covered.
>>
>> Having been a fan of Borland, and now a user of Visual Studio, I would 
>> like to present the notion of using a language-independent framework, like 
>> the .net framework and then document it so well that us users can write 
>> our own front-end languages, a la Visual Basic, C#, J#, ASP.NET, etc.
>>
>> So there would be the ".POV Framework" and then C#.POV, J#.POV, Visual 
>> POV...
>>
>> Also, if I want to create a post-processor library, or an animation 
>> utility, or a complicated subroutine that can create a random moon for 
>> example, then the compiled libraries could work with all the 
>> implementations.
>>
>> Maybe (and this is a big maybe) we could boil down the SDL to a set of 
>> libraries that can be plugged in to Visual Studio, or used with Java or 
>> Perl, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> I know this is a lot of work, but it would get the POV team out of the 
>> language biz and let them focus on thing like rendering engines and speed 
>> optimizations.
>>
>> Sorry if this has been brought up previously, but I missed it if it was.
> 
> 


-- 
---
Bryan Valencia

- I'd rather live with false hope than with false despair.

Post a reply to this message

"Rarius" <rar### [at] rariuscouk> wrote in message 
news:47041646$1@news.povray.org...
>I must admit to liking the idea of a POV library... especially a .POV. 
>Being a software engineer by trade thats not really surprising!
>
> For many of us hard core coders that wouldn't be a bad solution. But it 
> would require a .NET developement environment and they don't come cheap 
> (unless your boss provides one like mine does!)
>
> POVRay has always been free and I hope it will remain so. If it suddenly 
> requires an expensive developement suite like VisualStudio that blows the 
> whole "free" thing out of the water.

uhm, VisualStudio Express is free, isn't it ?

cu!
-- 
#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*C/50#end#macro _(b,e,k,l)#local C=0;#while(C<50)
sphere{G(b,e)+3*z.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1;
#end#end _(y-x,y,x,x+y)_(y,-x-y,x+y,y)_(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)_(-y,y,y+z,x+y)
_(0x+y.5+y/2x)_(0x-y.5+y/2x)            // ZK http://www.povplace.com

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> "Rarius" <rar### [at] rariuscouk> wrote in message 
> news:47041646$1@news.povray.org...
>> I must admit to liking the idea of a POV library... especially a .POV. 
>> Being a software engineer by trade thats not really surprising!
>>
>> For many of us hard core coders that wouldn't be a bad solution. But it 
>> would require a .NET developement environment and they don't come cheap 
>> (unless your boss provides one like mine does!)
>>
>> POVRay has always been free and I hope it will remain so. If it suddenly 
>> requires an expensive developement suite like VisualStudio that blows the 
>> whole "free" thing out of the water.
> 
> uhm, VisualStudio Express is free, isn't it ?
> 
> cu!

Yes, I am using VS Express 2008 Beta right now.  It so totally rocks!

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/express/future/bb421473.aspx




-- 
---
Bryan Valencia

- I'd rather live with false hope than with false despair.

Post a reply to this message

Bryan Valencia <no### [at] waycom> wrote:
> This would open the doors to things like...

people writing powerful libraries for POV-Ray which are not portable and
would require for people to install development environments in their
system just to get the thing working.

  Also since the library is probably written in a language only 1% of
POV-Ray users like, use or even understand, it would probably be pretty
useless for almost everyone but the author himself.

  The good thing about the SDL is that the only requirement to use it
is POV-Ray. That's it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:
> > POVRay has always been free and I hope it will remain so. If it suddenly 
> > requires an expensive developement suite like VisualStudio that blows the 
> > whole "free" thing out of the water.

> uhm, VisualStudio Express is free, isn't it ?

  Portability anyone?

  Not everyone uses Windows, you know.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I should say that a type of this is possible today...

You could create a POV namespace and begin coding "objects" that exist 
in a structure and are able to be managed in source code, and stored in 
your own formats, either in your own library or in a custom "Scene" file.

Then all you have to do is make your objects able to export themselves 
in a POV format, like:

public class Sphere()
{
	public String ToPOV()
	{
		/*build the string to output a sphere and it's properties here*/
	}
}


Anyhow, this could be done now, but it would be better not to have to 
render the scene as text... it would be better if we could use some kind 
of bytecode that didn't barf on typos :)

-- 
---
Bryan Valencia

- I'd rather live with false hope than with false despair.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Bryan Valencia <no### [at] waycom> wrote:
>> This would open the doors to things like...
> 
> people writing powerful libraries for POV-Ray which are not portable and
> would require for people to install development environments in their
> system just to get the thing working.
> 
>   Also since the library is probably written in a language only 1% of
> POV-Ray users like, use or even understand, it would probably be pretty
> useless for almost everyone but the author himself.
> 
>   The good thing about the SDL is that the only requirement to use it
> is POV-Ray. That's it.
> 


But the thing is that POV could maintain their OWN version of the 
language if they wanted.  Just like anyone can use the Microsoft .net 
framework documentation to make cobol.net or lisp.net if they were so 
inclined.

My point is that the engine should be divorced from the language.

-- 
---
Bryan Valencia

- I'd rather live with false hope than with false despair.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:15:37 -0700, Bryan Valencia wrote:

> This would open the doors to things like...

Smaller groups of people with knowledge in how to code up a scene in a 
given language.

This seems like a great way to fragment the community....

Jim

Post a reply to this message