Nieminen Mika wrote in message <35efc03b.0@news.povray.org>...
>Rik Ling <rli### [at] pipcomcom> wrote:
>: Have you considered (yikes!) Java?
>
>  I think that Java is not an option nowadays, because:
>
>  a) Java is slow.
[snip]
That may be so, under the the circumstances you describe. But the original
poster seriously considers using Tcl/Tk and that is an interpreted language,
not like Java, where precompiled bytecode is running through a virtual
machine...

>  c) Java is hardly portable.

I agree that Java has portability-problems, but an application like the GUI
for POV-Ray would be doable.

>This may sound crazy, but it's true. Usually
>you need a web browser to run java (this adds slowness to the whole thing).
[snip]

And this is where you go wrong. You are speaking about Java applets. But a
GUI for POV-Ray would not be realized as an applet but as a Java
application. This runs directly in the Java virtual machine, not in a
browser. So you only need to get a compatible virtual machine.
My best guess there would be either the Microsoft VM of IE4.0 or Sun's VMs
which exist for many platforms. And if need be you could install just the VM
you need...

Now, back to topic:
I personally don't see a reason for a portable UI at all, and the idea of
having a Tcl/Tk or Java GUI running together with a C raytracer is not what
I am looking for for christmas...

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

On 4 Sep 1998 06:02:16 -0500, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] assaricctutfi> wrote:
>  Ok, ok, mac version is also highly developed, but that doesn't change much
>the original statement. I don't want to blame anyone either, but I also think
>that povteam spends too much time and efforts on the windows (and the mac)
>GUI.

Have you considered the possibility that only one or two members of the POV-Team
are actually working on the Windows port at any given time?  Maybe they're just
more prolific or higher profile.  After all, the two members of the POV-Team who
post here regularly are the Windows guy and one of the Mac guys, so of course 
their focus is on the Windows and Mac ports.  That doesn't mean nothing's 
getting done on the other ports - just look at the list of things that were 
fixed in the renderer in 3.1b6.  That's in _ALL_ ports.  There's just not much 
to be done with the interface in DOS, and the last anyone knew was that the 
team didn't have a Unix guy, so now that they have one (assuming they do, of 
course) I'm sure he's working on important porting issues.

I don't have any more inside information than the rest of you do.  I'm just 
willing to cut the Team a little more slack than some of the people here.

Post a reply to this message

On 04 Sep 1998 10:22:48 +0900, Roland Mas <mas### [at] acratrcojp> wrote:
> - A Tk interface. I don't know Tk yet, but I'll have to learn it
>anyway for a professionnal job, and from what I read it seems quite
>easy and quite portable. The underlying language would be either
>Python or Tcl, which I also plan to learn in the next few weeks. My
>proposed plan would be to extend these languages with C-written
>functions that I would get from POV-Ray.

If you make a Tk interface, please keep in mind that some of us might
want to use it with Perl/Tk.  Also, keep in mind that the new POVLEGAL
specifically forbids making new interfaces, so you won't be able to
distribute your changes without the blessing of the POV-Team.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:34:54 +0200, Johannes Hubert <jhu### [at] algonetse> wrote:
>Nieminen Mika wrote in message <35efc03b.0@news.povray.org>...
>>Rik Ling <rli### [at] pipcomcom> wrote:
>>: Have you considered (yikes!) Java?
>>
>>  I think that Java is not an option nowadays, because:
>>
>>  a) Java is slow.
>[snip]
>That may be so, under the the circumstances you describe. But the original
>poster seriously considers using Tcl/Tk and that is an interpreted language,
>not like Java, where precompiled bytecode is running through a virtual
>machine...

Not to get in a religious war or anything, but Tk doesn't have to be used with
Tcl.  It can also be used with Perl, which is compiled bytecode running through
a virtual machine.  You can probably even use Tk with that weird caffeine-cult 
solution-in-search-of-a-problem.

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert <jhu### [at] algonetse> wrote:
:>you need a web browser to run java (this adds slowness to the whole thing).

: And this is where you go wrong. You are speaking about Java applets. But a
: GUI for POV-Ray would not be realized as an applet but as a Java
: application. This runs directly in the Java virtual machine, not in a
: browser. So you only need to get a compatible virtual machine.
: My best guess there would be either the Microsoft VM of IE4.0 or Sun's VMs
: which exist for many platforms. And if need be you could install just the VM
: you need...

  Ok, I was wrong about that. This misunderstanding may be caused by the
fact, that I have never seen on heard about those kind of programs. I
recognize my ignorance.
  It's however discouraging that I have never seen that Java VM although
I use a sparc almost dayly.

-- 
                                                           - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <par### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
: Have you considered the possibility that only one or two members of the POV-Team
: are actually working on the Windows port at any given time?

  Ok, if this is the case, I apologize. I didn't think very much what I wrote.
I wrote without better knowledge.
  It's just that the loss of the povhelp program (yes, I really liked it) hurt
me... :)
  I think I'll never really forgive them about that...

-- 
                                                           - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

Perhaps there appears to be more work done on the windows GUI of POV because
this is proportional to the number of users that have this OS...  It seems
to make sense to spend reasonably more time working on the most popular
format..


Matt

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote in message <35f00712.0@news.povray.org>...
[snip]
>  It's however discouraging that I have never seen that Java VM although
>I use a sparc almost dayly.

That's because the VM is not really something "visible". It's more like the
Perl interpreter/compiler for example, the platform some other app runs on:
You start "Perl.exe myscript.pl" to execute myscript. Just like this you
start "Java.exe myapp.class" to start the java-application myapp. (Or
"jview.exe myapp.class" if you are using Microsoft's VM).

But as you wrote yourself earlier: The newer browsers all have a VM
installed, which is used to run applets. So if you have one of these
browsers, you have a VM too, even on your Sparc.
You had this right in your post, I only wanted to point out that Java
applications can be run without a browser, with the pure VM (and the
classfiles/packages of course).
Hasn't Corel developed a Java version of their WordPerfect suite (or did
they drop it)?
This would be an example of such an application and wouldn't run in a
browser either, but directly in the VM.

Greetings,
Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

In article <m36### [at] rpc66acratrcojp> , mas### [at] acratrcojp (Roland Mas)
wrote:

>  My point was not to blame anybody (and I'm genuinely sorry if I hurt
>your feelings) but to propose concrete things. I know of course that
>Windows 95 is not the only supported platform, I know that there are
>Mac users, and OS/2 users, and Unix users, and so on. The real point
>is: why continue developing one interface for each of these platforms,
>instead of writing one that is portable? This is just an idea, of
>course. But if I add that I personnally intend to develop at least one
>of the two interfaces I described before, what wrong is there?

Hmm, there is no (unsolvable) technichal problem, yes, but be assured of one fact: A
Mac user, for example, would never use a GUI made in the Windows style. What i am
refering to are menu names, dialog layout, shortcut keys, etc. There has been such a
protest when Microsoft made Word 6 for the Mac because all this was exactly like the
Windows one. People continued using the old 5.1 Word simply for this (and a few other
bugs) reason!
So basically this would end up in some kind of GUI philosophy war because Mac users
are used to do thinks in a different manner than WinDOS users are. And the same goes
for the Unix ports etc.


Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

Post a reply to this message

I doubt whether a single GUI would be desirable, because of the different
look and feel expected on the different platforms. I advocate a per system
interface, applying the full strength of the platform/OS. But, I admit I am
a Win95 user, and therefore biased.

As far as Java is concerned, a program with the functions now performed by
for example, the GUI for Windows 95: a multiple document editor and a
manager for some settings which can be exported in the form of an ASCII
(.ini) file are well within the scope of a Java application, and it would
run with a satisfactory speed on most machines. Many features are ready
available in the form of 'JavaBeans' (the Java equivalent of (say) ActiveX
controls). As to the control of the render engine, this could be
accomplished trough the JNI (Java Native Interface), kicking the native code
of the render engine.

And forgive me I say it once again: JAVA IS MUCH MORE THAN APPLETS. It is a
full fledged programming language, very similar to C++, with the magnificent
exception of pointer arithmetic, and in that respect much more safe.

Frans

Post a reply to this message