"Ryan Lamansky" <Spa### [at] kardaxcom> wrote in message
news:405121c3$1@news.povray.org...

>If I'm still around when POV-Ray 3.6 is released and it's still not VS.NET 2003
>compatible, I'll update this document.

The current 3.6 beta (http://www.povray.org/beta/) is built with VS.NET 2003.

regards,

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

In article <405121c3$1@news.povray.org> , "Ryan Lamansky" 
<Spa### [at] kardaxcom> wrote:

> If I'm still around when POV-Ray 3.6 is released and it's still not VS.NET
> 2003 compatible, I'll update this document.

This has alreday been discussed:

From: "JenniferJ" <nomail@nomail>
Date: Wed,  7 Jan 2004 14:58:11 EST
Newsgroups: povray.unofficial.patches
Message-ID: <web.3ffc64d3e05b701c9fd50ea0@news.povray.org>
Subject: Support VC .NET
Xref: news.povray.org povray.unofficial.patches:9082

<http://news.povray.org/*/thread/%3Cweb.3ffc64d3e05b701c9fd50ea0%40news.povr
ay.org%3E/>

    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

"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message
news:40517293@news.povray.org...
>
> "Ryan Lamansky" <Spa### [at] kardaxcom> wrote in message
news:405121c3$1@news.povray.org...
>
> >If I'm still around when POV-Ray 3.6 is released and it's still not
VS.NET 2003
> >compatible, I'll update this document.
>
> The current 3.6 beta (http://www.povray.org/beta/) is built with VS.NET
2003.
>
> regards,
>
> -- Chris

Great :-)

-Ryan

Post a reply to this message

Discussed, perhaps.  But not resolved, the way I see it.

There's no doubt in my mind that the default VS.NET 2003's C++ compiler is
sub-par, but it can be made to work with POV-Ray with minimal difficulty, so
I did. The fact that the code it produced is about 5% faster than the
POV-Ray 3.5 official release is interesting, but I presume POV-Ray 3.6 is
compiled with a newer version of Intel's compiler, so it should regain the
lead.

-Ryan

Post a reply to this message

> There's no doubt in my mind that the default VS.NET 2003's C++ compiler is
> sub-par

Why's that?

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Though I have a strong undestanding of C++ syntax, I have minimal experience
(C# is my specialty).

Over the past two years I have seen nearly all praise toward VS.NET's C++
implementation paired with an equal amount of criticism.  Even though I'm
not very experienced with it, I trust in the opinions of so many others.

I want to be good at C++, as it has some important advantages over C#.  A
big part of my reasons for modifying POV 3.5 to work with VS.NET 2003 is to
start building up my C/C++ experience.  I have since spent a lot of time
studying the code.  (I think the x_FIELDS-style macros are
brilliant--they're used to provide a degree of object-oriented programming
in C.)  I've already had some ideas for performance optimizations, but I'll
need to gain a better understanding of the big picture before I can safely
try anything.

-Ryan

"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message
news:40521479$1@news.povray.org...
> > There's no doubt in my mind that the default VS.NET 2003's C++ compiler
is
> > sub-par
>
> Why's that?
>
>  - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>

Post a reply to this message

In article <40586749$1@news.povray.org> , "Ryan Lamansky" 
<Spa### [at] kardaxcom> wrote:

> I want to be good at C++, as it has some important advantages over C#.  A
> big part of my reasons for modifying POV 3.5 to work with VS.NET 2003 is to
> start building up my C/C++ experience.  I have since spent a lot of time
> studying the code.

Well, the POV-Ray source code is definitely not a good example of C++ code.
Even the C used could be better given the almost two decades the oldest
parts are old now.

    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

> Well, the POV-Ray source code is definitely not a good example of C++
code.
> Even the C used could be better given the almost two decades the oldest
> parts are old now.

Cause and Effect.

Despite any deficiencies, POV-Ray is unique among all C programs.  Few are
as aged, fewer are open-source to any degree, and none produce the
visually-amazing results.  I think it's something that any contributer
should be proud of :-)

For these reasons, POV-Ray interests me more than any other C application
out there.

-Ryan

Post a reply to this message

Regards Ryan

Was usefull the instructions given to compile for VS NET2003, we do it and
everithing works fine, i hope you can help me with this issue, where in the
source code can i redefine the project as a win32 console mode project ,
with the intention to not display any window, and only save the rendered
file as operating in background mode, can be done this ??

Thanks in advance for yout attention, i hope you answer my question.

Att.
Luis Vargas
Guayaquil - Ecuador

Post a reply to this message

"can i redefine the project as a win32 console mode project"

Yes.  I'm not exactly sure what's involved, but I would explore deleting the
entire "Windows Source" parts of the project and trying to wire up "main" in
povray.cpp.

"with the intention to not display any window, and only save the rendered
file as operating in background mode"

The POV-Ray license (povlegal.doc) is pretty clear in that you can't do
this.  You're not allowed to obscure the fact that POV-Ray is generating the
image.

See http://www.povray.org/povlegal.html and scroll to the PERMITTED
MODIFICATION AND CUSTOM VERSIONS section.

You can legally obtain a similar effect by implementing a UI extension that
controls POV-Ray from another application.

-Ryan

Post a reply to this message