Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> iceqb <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > I completly agree, POV-Ray shouldn't become an advanced programming language
> > like C++ or Java, but it should offer POV-artists a much more easier way of
> > making complex and realistic scenes.
>
>   One could argue that those two things are actually the same thing.
>
> > I don't want to have to learn C++ before using POV
>
>   A fully-featured object-oriented language does not automatically mean
> that you *must* learn *all* the intrinsic complicated details of the
> language in order to create scenes. I have always wondered why so many
> people seem to think like it does.
>
>   Let me present a comparison, using Windows:
>
>   Does a regular user, who just wants to surf the net and read his email,
> have to learn how to edit the Windows registry?
>   The answer is naturally: No.
>
>   Is it *bad* that Windows includes the means to edit the registry?
>   Of course not. Those who want to edit it can do so. Is that bad?

OK, I agree, but what if you have to deal with it once, just once, and you
haven't got a clue what to do, you could seriously damage your system.
So a little knowledge is always easy.

>   The fact that a feature *exists* does not mean that you *must* even
> know about its existence in order to use the program.

No, I don't know POV-Ray SDL inside-out to, but now, if I have to make
something that isn't done by anyone else, it's at least understandable,
and i don't have to code too large amounts of code for it. You're gonna get
confronted with the ins and outs of the code one day.

>
>   If fully object-oriented features are added to the scene description
> language, so what? It doesn't necessarily mean that you must learn to
> use them in order to create scenes.
>
>   You have to realize that there are two kinds of POV-Ray users: Artists
> and developers.
>   The idea with enhancing the language is that developers have better
> better tools to create easy-to-use libraries for the artists to use.
>
>   Wouldn't you like it if you could just write 'import("scene.3ds")' and
> magically the 3ds file is imported and rendered?
>   If the SDL is enhanced enough and if some developer creates such a
> library, then you can do exactly that, ie. import 3D-Studio files with
> a one-liner (without even having to know that something called
> "object-oriented programming" even exists).

If you're gonna make SDL an object-oriented language, you have to be
prepared
to start from scratch, because the current implementation isn't even close
to
that ideal. That means a new syntaxis with classes, structs, ... which
inevitably means relearning the whole deal!

Here's an other objection to extending SDL : security. With more
implementations
on file I/O in the SDL, it would be possible to overwrite crucial
systemfiles
(on Windows, doubtably on Linux), and corrupt the entire system. (thinking
virus or trojan!)

Another thing, what if you do rewrite SDL, and you do, as you say develop
libraries for artists, that means double shifts, wright because you can't
release it before the libraries, or no artist would understand it. (I might
be willing to learn, others won't)

>   So I more or less completely disagree with you: POV-Ray *needs* and
> would greatly benefit from a fully-featured programming language.

Post a reply to this message