In article <3d89ffe4@news.povray.org>, Artis <art### [at] aaaapollolv> 
wrote:

> I agree that POV is better off with the SDL. But what do you have against 
> Python in general?

It's Python.
I mainly hate the significance of white space as syntax, lack of visible 
block endings, and (in my opinion) horrible attempt at OO. That and the 
rest of the language.
Python has been suggested before, read my comments in those threads. If 
POV used Python, I wouldn't use POV.

-- 
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 <3d89f678@news.povray.org>,
 David McCabe <dav### [at] myrealboxcom> wrote:

> POV is not real...because it can't do everythingor it makes it really hard. 

That is a very bad definition of "real". 


> POV is like PostScript, which you wouldn't exactly call a scripting 
> language, even though it can do that kind of thing to some degree.

Actually, I do call PostScript a scripting language. A fairly 
well-designed and flexible one too...have you seen the PostScript 
raytracer?
Not anything I'd write an application in, but that doesn't mean it isn't 
a real language...what it does, it does well, and doesn't need to do 
more.


> Security is an issue whever you are writing a program. How is writing a 
> script for POV less secure then writing a script that runs alone?

Huh? The point is that a script for POV is more secure, not less. You 
can render a scene being fairly confident it won't destroy your system. 
Using an external language would lose that security, making things more 
difficult to secure. Not a huge drawback, but a potential problem, and 
especially necessary for applications like a web interface to the 
renderer.


> > How would it make POV smaller? Instead of POV interpreter + POV core,
> > you end up with POV core + generic interpreter + lots of glue code.
> No, the interpreter would be an *external dependency* (get used to it :-).

POV wouldn't ship with it? The user would have to download an entire 
language package ported to their platform in order to just render a 
scene? Bad idea. Extremely bad idea:

1: More platform-dependant code to maintain or port, for hooking up with 
the chosen language package.

2: Dependance on a specific version of the interpreter. No control over 
conflicts with official includes, if the interpreter or language changes 
it would force a quick release of POV just to restore compatibility, it 
is just asking for trouble.

3: Dependance on the interpreter being available and up-to-date on all 
supported platforms, making it impossible to port to platforms where the 
interpreter doesn't exist.


> > Not really designed to be embedded in another application, possible to
> > do but awkward. I think Matz is working on making this easier.
> it's a good language, however. 

I like it. It is very similar to a cleaned-up Objective C. (actually, 
more like Smalltalk, which is the main influence of Objective C)
Take this, add some syntactic sugar for defining scene entities and 
handling vectors (and get rid of some Perl-isms), and it'd be a nice 
language. You can write very concise but clear code in it.

I think something closer to Sapphire would be better though, something 
closer to the current POV language (so it is still familiar), and 
simplified (a scene description language doesn't really need regular 
expressions built-in).


> > I think any new scene description language will have to be something
> > like POV: partly a simple markup language or human-editable data format,
> > with a scripting language and built-in support for vectors. Object
> > oriented as well...POV is almost there, it could become a
> > prototype-based OOL with just a few modifications.
> Okay, that's fine. But please make sure we get good OO features.

Heh, I'm not on the design team...but the POV Team has hinted at a 
"major reworking" of the language for 4.0.

Some other languages you might look at:
Sapphire (on my web page)
A prototype-based object-oriented language with a fairly Java or C-like 
syntax. Very dynamic and flexible, built-in support for vectors, made to 
be embedded in other programs or run standalone.
Wait a while though, I've made some big changes since the last release.

Io: http://www.dekorte.com/Software/C/Io/
Very small, embeddable, pure prototype-based OO language.

Cel: http://freshmeat.net/projects/cel/?topic_id=49
Another prototype-based language (can you tell I'm interested in 
Prototype based OO? I think it applies well to this sort of problem.).

Also Lua, Self, Smalltalk, Objective C, etc...you mentioned Ruby, so 
chances are you are already familiar with at least a few of these.

-- 
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

David McCabe <dav### [at] myrealboxcom> wrote:
> POV is not real...because it can't do everythingor it makes it really hard. 

  The POV-Ray SDL is a turing-complete language.
  "It's hard to use" is not a good definition of "real" scripting language.

  In fact, in some generic scripting language some things can be harder
to do than with POV-Ray SDL (ie. you need a lot more code to achieve the
same thing). Thus, "better" is always a subjective issue.

> POV is like PostScript, which you wouldn't exactly call a scripting 
> language, even though it can do that kind of thing to some degree.

  I see absolutely no reason for not calling it a scripting language.
As Chris mentioned, you can even make a raytracer with post-script (as
you can do with POV-Ray SDL, btw).

  Your definition of "scripting language" is a bit odd and quite unclear.

> Security is an issue whever you are writing a program. How is writing a 
> script for POV less secure then writing a script that runs alone?

  Have you noticed that POV-Ray 3.5 has new security settings? Have you
ever wondered why?

> No, the interpreter would be an *external dependency* (get used to it :-).

  Just one word: Portability.

-- 
#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

David McCabe wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Excuse me. I did not in any way intend to sound rude, arrogent, or whatever. 
> In fact, I think you've misinterpeted me altogether. Notice the last 
> paragraph, in which I say, "maybe it's the stupidest thing ever. Anyhoo, I 
> thought I'd mention it to you who know more than I do.".
> 
> By 'real', what I meant was, well, standard, or fully able to do anything, 
> almost general-purpose at least, as in "PostScript is unreal (you could 
> write a program in it, but it would be hard)".


I do not want to use POV to read my DVD:
If it was possible to write a DVD-reader/player software in pov SDL, it 
would be, IMO, a very bad thing!
I want POV to raytrace images!
Please, know and limit your goal for a language.
Performing account-balance or database access is IMO not the goal for POV.
Neither is performing telecommunication protocols (sending mail, 
browsing websites) or even solving NP-complete problem (even if a 
graphical display of the solution made with POV is usually a nice picture).
And I certainly do not want POV to be part of the realtime system in 
charge of the control of a powerfull facility (nuclear plant, but also 
hydroelectric, or what ever) [excepted if POV get the extra cycle of CPU 
to retrace an image in background, instead of using the classical 
looping idle-task]).

Post a reply to this message

I just had the same discussion about "the world does not need one more
scripting language"
in another newsgroup. It was not about POV but about this:
http://www.it-berater.org/tt-info.shtml
(in german only - sorry). Its a scripting language specialized for doing
desktop-automations.

The two points are the same for POV 3.5's scripting language.
Reading this, please keep in mind that these "special pupose scripting
languages" developed in
an evolutionary process to fit best exactly for their purpose.

1. Those people are familiar with THEIR scripting language which is a
"general purpose language".
    Is like a hammer you can use for many things. They would prefer to use
it then switch to anotehr language and leran new.

2. They say "If you sell your "specialized tool" as a "in a general purpose
tool-box" then you can sell more pieces.

What they can't know is this:

1. If you are a car mechanic you need othr tools then if you are a
door-mechanic. You may use a hammer instead but it will be difficult. To
drive with your "standard car" on a mountain may work with some aditions -
but better learn to drive a car that was specialy constructed for exactly
that purpose. YOU will know later WHY.

- If you take time and LEARN these special-purpose tools first, you may
later think diffrent.

All those people recruit out of newcomers who don't know how it feels to use
the "special purpose tool"
compared to open a door with a "hammer" (general purpose tool).

--Theo

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Distributed Network-Rendering or Local SMP-Rendering on all CPU's you have.
With SMPOV und POV-Ray 3.5.Download free at:
http://www.it-berater.org/smpov.htm

Post a reply to this message

IMHO povray is very good at what it does. That is only one thing that annoys
me. It is the fact that you cannot hold variable values from one frame to
another. But, then again, that wouldn't be very easy to implement, I
suppose. Using files to store values is a bit cumbersome.
But anyway, it still rocks just as it is now.

All the best

Fidel.

in article 3D8### [at] freefr, Le Forgeron at jgr### [at] freefr wrote
on 20/9/02 9:29 am:

> David McCabe wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Excuse me. I did not in any way intend to sound rude, arrogent, or whatever.
>> In fact, I think you've misinterpeted me altogether. Notice the last
>> paragraph, in which I say, "maybe it's the stupidest thing ever. Anyhoo, I
>> thought I'd mention it to you who know more than I do.".
>> 
>> By 'real', what I meant was, well, standard, or fully able to do anything,
>> almost general-purpose at least, as in "PostScript is unreal (you could
>> write a program in it, but it would be hard)".
> 
> 
> I do not want to use POV to read my DVD:
> If it was possible to write a DVD-reader/player software in pov SDL, it
> would be, IMO, a very bad thing!
> I want POV to raytrace images!
> Please, know and limit your goal for a language.
> Performing account-balance or database access is IMO not the goal for POV.
> Neither is performing telecommunication protocols (sending mail,
> browsing websites) or even solving NP-complete problem (even if a
> graphical display of the solution made with POV is usually a nice picture).
> And I certainly do not want POV to be part of the realtime system in
> charge of the control of a powerfull facility (nuclear plant, but also
> hydroelectric, or what ever) [excepted if POV get the extra cycle of CPU
> to retrace an image in background, instead of using the classical
> looping idle-task]).
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:01:13 +0100, Fidel viegas
<fid### [at] artrecognitioncouk> wrote:

>That is only one thing that annoys
>me. It is the fact that you cannot hold variable values from one frame to
>another. But, then again, that wouldn't be very easy to implement, I
>suppose.

It was implemented in MegaPOV and the Team had their good reasons that
the implementation didn't make it into 3.5.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg: 

>> > I think any new scene description language will have to be something
>> > like POV: partly a simple markup language or human-editable data
>> > format, with a scripting language and built-in support for vectors.
>> > Object oriented as well...POV is almost there, it could become a
>> > prototype-based OOL with just a few modifications.
>> Okay, that's fine. But please make sure we get good OO features.
> 
> Heh, I'm not on the design team...but the POV Team has hinted at a 
> "major reworking" of the language for 4.0.
> 
> Some other languages you might look at:
> Sapphire (on my web page)
> A prototype-based object-oriented language with a fairly Java or C-like 
> syntax. Very dynamic and flexible, built-in support for vectors, made to
> be embedded in other programs or run standalone.
> Wait a while though, I've made some big changes since the last release.
> 
> Io: http://www.dekorte.com/Software/C/Io/
> Very small, embeddable, pure prototype-based OO language.
> 
> Cel: http://freshmeat.net/projects/cel/?topic_id=49
> Another prototype-based language (can you tell I'm interested in 
> Prototype based OO? I think it applies well to this sort of problem.).
> 
> Also Lua, Self, Smalltalk, Objective C, etc...you mentioned Ruby, so 
> chances are you are already familiar with at least a few of these.

I agree with Lua choice :-)
It is small, fast, with a familiar and friendly syntax.
It is aimed as describing data, yet has powerful language features.
The last version allows to load a file with a custom loader: you can use it 
to load a description scene with Lua code embedded in it, a bit like PHP or 
ASP code can be embedded in HTML.
As per security, Lua allows to desactivate at runtime chosen functions from 
the provided library before executing a script. It is suited at user-defined 
level of security.

BTW, my idea of binary POV-Ray file format would allow this: to write a 
scene in one's favorite language, and to generate data directly 
understandable by the renderer, without additional parsing stage.

Biggest drawback: not all POV-Ray users would be able to understand/replay 
the scene. Imagine having Python, Perl, Ruby, Rebol, JavaScript, Lua, 
Scheme, Small, Java, Tcl, SDL, S-Lang, VBScript, etc. interpreters for POV-
Ray, all installed on your system. A nightmare for this newsgroup :-) Not to 
mention maintaining these interpreters for all platforms...

Bah, enough dreaming, neither Lua nor binary files will be used.
And, franckly, I can live without them in POV-Ray :-) But I could accept 
some SDL improvements, like a for loop, better functions, etc.

-- 
--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--
Philippe Lhoste (Paris -- France)
Professional programmer and amateur artist
http://jove.prohosting.com/~philho/

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:29:44 +0200, Le Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> I do not want to use POV to read my DVD.

Sorry, but I still plan mpeg2 port ;-)

ABX

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d8ae9eb@news.povray.org>,
 "Theo Gottwald *" <The### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

> I just had the same discussion about "the world does not need one 
> more scripting language" in another newsgroup. It was not about POV 
> but about this:
> http://www.it-berater.org/tt-info.shtml
> (in german only - sorry). Its a scripting language specialized for doing
> desktop-automations.

I would say the answer will always be "yes". First, as you said, 
different languages are better at different problems. But also, a new 
language can try out wild ideas that would never be added to a 
widely-used existing language. A given language may never get more than 
10 users and never be used for any serious purpose, but if it works out 
a concept that turns out to be useful in a more successful language, it 
was a success. What would things be like if people never created a new 
language if there was already one that was "good enough"?

Plus, I believe that the more languages you know, the more ways of 
looking at problems you learn, the better you will be at programming. 
The book "The Pragmatic Programmer" (which I don't own, but plan to get) 
recommended learning at least one new language a year, to avoid getting 
stuck in a single mindset.
http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/loty/

-- 
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