Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> C coding with a basic understanding of C++ would probably be sufficient for
> many of the tasks in re-writing the code that has to be replaced. Recall that
> all the POV code was originally c, and the fundamental core of the algorithms
> and objects are still readable by a C programmer.

yes, true.  I have 3.6 source here.  I said C programming exactly for that:
I am yet to encounter any classes or other C++ features.  Overall, it's
fairly organized and readable and well modularized over a bunch of files.

> The re-write basically involves reading and understanding an existing
> function (or group of related functions), and writing a clean version to
> replace it.

hmm, I guess it's easier to rewrite a whole module (say, colour.cpp) rather
than a single function within.  Because a rewrite may be tempted to
organize things in a different way, dropping hacked functions, writing
others.  I think beginning by understand the functionality provided by the
header is a better start than thinking about one function alone.

> One way to approach it (and one that I would favour) would be for one group
> of people to reverse-engineer the functionality into pseudo-code or similar,
> and for another group to then take that and write new code. This helps to
> ensure that the new code does not inadvertently copy from the old.

yes, I agree.

> Plus there's always the community and primary developers available to guide
> things. And anyone who is working on the code actively is welcome to IM me
> any time for assistance.

I may take the plunge, though there is always the real-world (like a little
daughter) in the way of my commitments.  Plus, I'm on Linux and that means
testing against gcc only.

Post a reply to this message