On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 00:01:20 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>In article <3c0ff1d7.41227138@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo 
>'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:
>
>> Also I don't know why I have to read everything about pov 3.5
>> on povray.co.uk and not on www.povray.org.
>
>Oh, you can read all about 3.5 on www.povray.org in the documentation.
>
>Personally I think users should discuss features they like on their pages.
>It is not the job of the POV-Team do create a page full of "marketing
>information" about POV-Ray.  Users being free to say what they like and
>dislike on their own independent page is much better, IMO.
>
>    Thorsten
Mabye you're right, but this makes life not so easy for newbies..

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Dec 2001 18:33:28 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Angelo 'kENpEX' Pesce <ken### [at] uniplanit> wrote:
>: But, if
>: U don't have special needs that let U use gcc (because dunno it has a
>: special feature that U need), this compiler is really bad. If U want
>: I'll tell U why: it's slow, it lacks a good ide (kdevelop is shit, and
>: bugged) and a good ide boosts productivity, it lacks a good debugger
>: (SoftIce rules) and it lacks a good profiler too (VTUNE rules).
>
>  Bullshit.
>  What makes you think it's slow? I haven't noticed it being any slower than
>other compilers.
Mabye you should try other compilers better. My tests shows it's lots
slower (at least if U use a recent version, with ansi c++ and
templates) and I think that this is due to its internal portable
structure...

>  A properly configured Emacs and a proper knowledge of makefiles is the best
>IDE one may wish.
If u think so... I don't want to flame on this, really...

>  It does not lack a good debugger: gdb.
>  It does not lack a good profiler: gprof.
>  The code generated by it is quite good. For example for Sparc the speed
>of the code it generates is closely comparable to Sun's own optimized
>compiler. Gcc optimizes the size of the binary a lot better than Sun's
>compiler.
>
>-- 
>#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
>rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
>],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
>7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 00:43:01 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

As this thread is turning on the wrong way, I think it's the time to
stop it. I think that noone will be sad if I don't reply to this and
to other stuff about this thread. Sorry if I wasted your time

>In article <3c0ff1d7.41227138@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo 
>'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:
>
>> I mailed Warp, and he told me to post in the newsgroup, so I
>> configured my news reader, downloaded all the past msgs and since I
>> saw a similar post in povray.programming I posted my own stuff (about
>> pov4 since I knew that pov3.5 was fixed)...
>> And this is the story, now we have a huge huge thread and at the
>> beginning someone told not so nice things too, but I don't feel that I
>> did anything wrong.
>
>What surprises me is that all people who suggest features that they have
>seen in commercial packages always assume their suggestion to add this and
>that feature to POV-Ray is new.  I mean, come on, do you really think we are
>all that ignorant to not know what features other/commercial packages have?
>
>Besides, Warp's FAQ already explains why your suggestions 5 and 8.  The FAQ
>also explains that POV-Ray is not a sole triangle mesh renderer, yet you
>ignore this suggestion and suggest 7.
>
>The 3.5 announcement from Sept. 2000 which you read as you know the feature
>set in 3.5 is final (as you said yourself) mentions that patches that are
>not included were not included because they have problems.  This doesn't
>keep you from suggesting 3.
>
>Your suggestion 4 is in the manual.  At least in the 3.5 manual there is no
>more excuse for not at least checking the manual to find the focal blur
>feature to find out about how it works and that it already does what you
>suggest.
>
>And you must have been aware that suggestion 1, which would *break* any
>scene written before POV-Ray 4.0.  It really should not have been difficult
>to guess the response to such a suggestion (hence my idea that you are only
>looking for a flamewar in my first reply).
>
>Your second suggestion isn't more diplomatic.  After all you could have
>checked before saying something.  What you imply is that you know how it is
>working (or what it is not doing) without ever looking at it and that
>because it doesn't do what you think is fastest it is in your opinion slow.
>And last but not least you really insult every developer by saying "It's
>very important to speed up the whole thing."  Do you think we don't know
>that a ray tracer needs to be fast?
>
>I know myself that it isn't easy to always express ideas well in a foreign
>language.  In fact it can be extremely difficult.  Unfortunately that isn't
>your problem.
>
>What you did wrong is to simply ignore the documentation and source code,
>then post suggestions based on your random assumptions which you obviously
>had the ability to validate first, and then expect everybody to be happy
>that you suggested something everybody knew already.
>
>The fact that you did not bother to check is the only thing that upsets me.
>You have the ability to do so yet you decided to imply your ideas are so
>unique you should make the suggestion anyway ... doing so simply implies
>that you think you know better and thus we are just waiting for your
>suggestions.  in particular you then declare your suggestions a "wish list",
>which is not exactly an invitation to discussing the implementation but more
>the feasibility, which is precisely what happened.
>
>The lack of first checking the obvious was also what promoted me to suggest
>"Looks like you have a few misconceptions about POV-Ray", which might have
>prompted you to conclude that this might indeed be the case and you did
>simply overlook or not find some information.  However, you never asked for
>more information regarding what was wrong with your suggestions until now,
>so assumed you were completely serious about them as they were ...
>
>> Sorry for that, I still think that is not so easy
>> for a newbie to understand povray development process and features by
>> reading the faqs
>
>Well, the reason for this is very, very simple:  The users POV-Ray are are
>usually not programmers and thus the focus of FAQs is on the use and not the
>development of the program...
>
>____________________________________________________
>Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
>e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
>Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c100048@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   It does not lack a good debugger: gdb.

Oh, come on!  You don't seriously want to call gdb a good debugger.
Debugging with printf is better!  Any high-level IDE based debugger wilkl
beat it in usability with sucess rates easily ten times hiugher than when
using gdb.  For $10K I can arrange a usability test (actually, i might be
able to get it for free...), if you would like.  Lets compare gdb with say
the CodeWarrior debugger on Windows.  If the total success rate of debug
tasks by programmers four who never used either debugger before, four who
used only gdb before and four who used only CodeWarrior before is not better
with CodeWarrior I donate, say US$500 to Unicef, if the CodeWarrior debugger
is better you donate the amount.

I am absolutely serious and confident about this!

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 00:56:25 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>In article <3c100048@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>
>>   It does not lack a good debugger: gdb.
>
>Oh, come on!  You don't seriously want to call gdb a good debugger.
>Debugging with printf is better!  Any high-level IDE based debugger wilkl
>beat it in usability with sucess rates easily ten times hiugher than when
>using gdb.  For $10K I can arrange a usability test (actually, i might be
>able to get it for free...), if you would like.  Lets compare gdb with say
>the CodeWarrior debugger on Windows.  If the total success rate of debug
>tasks by programmers four who never used either debugger before, four who
>used only gdb before and four who used only CodeWarrior before is not better
>with CodeWarrior I donate, say US$500 to Unicef, if the CodeWarrior debugger
>is better you donate the amount.
>
>I am absolutely serious and confident about this!
For some ppl it's only a matter of taste... Well I think that features
are not a matter of taste but hey if U fell more productive with gdb I
can't tell U "use another thing". The only thing that makes me happy
is to see that many command-shell wizards now code in visualC and feel
absolutely fine... :)

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c1004ab.46048026@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo 
'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:

> As this thread is turning on the wrong way, I think it's the time to
> stop it. I think that noone will be sad if I don't reply to this and
> to other stuff about this thread. Sorry if I wasted your time

OK.

As far as you suggestions are concerned, you now have a lot more information
than before.  Your are very welcome to create a patch to add i.e. nurbs or
to improve radiosity.


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 01:05:19 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>In article <3c1004ab.46048026@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo 
>'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:
>
>> As this thread is turning on the wrong way, I think it's the time to
>> stop it. I think that noone will be sad if I don't reply to this and
>> to other stuff about this thread. Sorry if I wasted your time
>
>OK.
>
>As far as you suggestions are concerned, you now have a lot more information
>than before. 
That's true...

> Your are very welcome to create a patch to add i.e. nurbs or
>to improve radiosity.
I don't think I'll do that. The only thing I really want to do is the
java distribuited rendering tool, I think I'll do it for an university
exam (well, when I will do that exam) so if noone finds it useful at
least I've done something useful for me

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: Oh, come on!  You don't seriously want to call gdb a good debugger.
: Debugging with printf is better!  Any high-level IDE based debugger wilkl
: beat it in usability with sucess rates easily ten times hiugher than when
: using gdb.  For $10K I can arrange a usability test (actually, i might be
: able to get it for free...), if you would like.  Lets compare gdb with say
: the CodeWarrior debugger on Windows.  If the total success rate of debug
: tasks by programmers four who never used either debugger before, four who
: used only gdb before and four who used only CodeWarrior before is not better
: with CodeWarrior I donate, say US$500 to Unicef, if the CodeWarrior debugger
: is better you donate the amount.

  This just says that the Codewarrior debugger is better than gdb. I have
no objections to that. I have never used that debugger, but if you say it's
better, I have no reason to not to believe you.
  However, the fact that there exist debuggers that are better than gdb
doesn't make the latter "bad".
  It also depends on the definition of "good". I wasn't thinking about
"easy-to-use graphical interface" when I said "good". I was thinking that it
does what it is supposed to.
  (In the same way one could claim that LaTeX is not good because it has
no graphical user interface and it's not WYSIWYG. Here the definition of
"good" is not the quality of the result, but ease of use. In my opinion
LaTeX is excellent, but I don't base my opinion on graphical interfaces.)

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c1009ac@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   This just says that the Codewarrior debugger is better than gdb. I have
> no objections to that. I have never used that debugger, but if you say it's
> better, I have no reason to not to believe you.
>   However, the fact that there exist debuggers that are better than gdb
> doesn't make the latter "bad".

Ah, I knew you would say that.  I have actually used a few more debuggers
and they all were better, but I haven't used them recently so any statement
about their usability would not be serious :-)

See, even the interface of a low level debugger can be much better than
anything gdb offers.  If you have access to any Macintosh at all, install
the low level debugger "MacsBugs" which you find on Apple's page (installing
requires to reboot!).  You can then activate it any time with the key
combination Apple+Power.  Once you have seen and used its text interface you
will realise how "bad" gdb is, really!

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

>  This just says that the Codewarrior debugger is better than gdb. I have
>no objections to that. I have never used that debugger, but if you say it's
>better, I have no reason to not to believe you.
>  However, the fact that there exist debuggers that are better than gdb
>doesn't make the latter "bad".

"  A properly configured Emacs and a proper knowledge of makefiles is
the best
IDE one may wish."

Being the "best" should mean that no other thing is better than it...

Post a reply to this message