 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <405b1638@news.povray.org> , David Burnett <var### [at] ntlworld com>
wrote:
> You know this one as always bugged me, the whole not practical thing.
This whole issue of plug-ins has been beaten to death years ago. No kind of
compiled plug-in system is going to be added to POV-Ray, period.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:55:23 +0100, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <405b1638@news.povray.org> , David Burnett <var### [at] ntlworldcom>
> wrote:
>
>> You know this one as always bugged me, the whole not practical thing.
>
> This whole issue of plug-ins has been beaten to death years ago. No kind of
> compiled plug-in system is going to be added to POV-Ray, period.
>
> Thorsten
Why would plug-ins have to be *compiled*? Why not embed something like,
say, Lua, or going a bit more heavyweight a language like Python or even
Lisp?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tyler Eaves wrote:
>
>> Why would plug-ins have to be *compiled*? Why not embed something like,
>> say, Lua, or going a bit more heavyweight a language like Python or even
>> Lisp?
>
>
> What would this gain you over using the SDL?
>
Functions that can be more than one line. I'm guessing
that would be number one on the list.
Personally I'd love to see parrot used so you could pick
from a range of languages.
Dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <405b1638@news.povray.org> , David Burnett <var### [at] ntlworldcom>
> wrote:
>
>
>>You know this one as always bugged me, the whole not practical thing.
>
>
> This whole issue of plug-ins has been beaten to death years ago. No kind of
> compiled plug-in system is going to be added to POV-Ray, period.
I didn't say it should, I just said I was bugged by the reason's
given.
Having said that, there's no reason why an unofficial version
shouldn't give it a shot.
Dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:51:31 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Tyler Eaves wrote:
>> Why would plug-ins have to be *compiled*? Why not embed something like,
>> say, Lua, or going a bit more heavyweight a language like Python or even
>> Lisp?
>
> What would this gain you over using the SDL?
Performance. (Compared to SDL anyways)
Extensibility
Data structures
Nicer syntax
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <pan### [at] NOSPAMml1net>,
Tyler Eaves <tyl### [at] NOSPAMml1net> wrote:
> Why would plug-ins have to be *compiled*? Why not embed something like,
> say, Lua, or going a bit more heavyweight a language like Python or even
> Lisp?
No reason. In fact, such a mechanism is already in place. What do you
think include files are?
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <405b66f8@news.povray.org>,
David Burnett <var### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote:
> Functions that can be more than one line. I'm guessing
> that would be number one on the list.
Then change functions to allow more complex constructs. Lua and Python
would be too slow for most of the things functions are used for anyway.
The POV-Ray scene description language does some pretty specialized
things...ever try to describe a scene in another programming language?
Gets messy, fast.
> Personally I'd love to see parrot used so you could pick
> from a range of languages.
None of them being very well suited to the task. I think improving
POV-Ray's language would be a better approach.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <405b1638@news.povray.org>,
David Burnett <var### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote:
> For a guess the library author would have a compiler and it only takes
> on willing person per platform to compile it for others. So that not to
> much of a problem really. The lack of a complier would only effect
> people want to use a libraries features for a platform that one one has
> complied it for which is no different to those who want to use a
> Unofficial version of Pov in the same scenario.
Except that unofficial versions are relatively few, and the source code
is guaranteed to be available. As you mention, library loading can be
abstracted and two implementations would cover almost every user, but
the result will be a lot of plugins being distributed as binaries for
just one platform, people trying to use plugins for other platforms and
asking why it doesn't work, and so on. The main reason against it is the
support headaches.
There is also a small security issue...if any scene could load and run
code from a plugin included with it, it would be easy to write a trojan.
If this were done with an unofficial version, word would get around
quickly, but it could be a big problem when it can be done with
individual plugins and scenes. You'd need an option to have POV only
load plugins from certain specified locations, similarly to the file I/O
restrictions.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:52:37 -0500, Christopher James Huff wrote:
>
> Then change functions to allow more complex constructs. Lua and Python
> would be too slow for most of the things functions are used for anyway.
> The POV-Ray scene description language does some pretty specialized
> things...ever try to describe a scene in another programming language?
> Gets messy, fast.
Take a look at psyco. It's essentially a JIT compiler for Python. For
really mathy stuff speed is often not that far from C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:47:06 -0500, Christopher James Huff wrote:
> In article <pan### [at] NOSPAMml1net>,
> Tyler Eaves <tyl### [at] NOSPAMml1net> wrote:
>
>> Why would plug-ins have to be *compiled*? Why not embed something like,
>> say, Lua, or going a bit more heavyweight a language like Python or even
>> Lisp?
>
> No reason. In fact, such a mechanism is already in place. What do you
> think include files are?
Include files are written in SDL. That's a major limitation from where I'm
sitting. Plus I'm thinking of going beyond what include files can do, by
providing access to POV internals for things like creating objects.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
