"Mr" <m******r******at_hotmail_dot_fr> wrote:

> The fact that it does work is already a huge achievement ! Ignoring the syntax I
> wonder, did you create the previous routines in POV originally? and if so, do
> you think there could be a way to compare fairly render times? Should rather
> only the parse to render ratio be considered ? with your approach, would
> separate builds have to be made afresh for every scene? About the nim script
> language, though it is said to have some removed functionality, is it still
> "Turing complete" ? ...Meaning, as much as POV/INC sdl?

The syntax can be adapted using macros. I've not tried it yet, only just started
with macros. But when you look at my code it is quite crude. It will be polished
a bit more.

No, I did it straight in Nim, but I have quite some graphics stuff in Nim to
build from. As render times are concerned, this is currently one thread and I'm
working on a multithreaded version. It's about half way.

Once done I'll compare a similar pattern, but POV-Ray will win as I so far have
no clue how to implement SIMD intrinsics. On my machine that would mean 24
thread each doing one calculation vs. 24 threads each doing ~8 calculations at
once.

One only has to build the renderer.nim once and then you can rewrite and render
many scripts on it without rebuilding.

Yes it is Turing complete, as far as I know. It has a bit of a problem with
pointers and c-libraries. It is a more capable language than POV-Ray SDL. Most
of Nim's "pure" libraries should work in script:
https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/tree/devel/lib/pure

But, beware, I'm certainly no Nim specialist. Also, there are / must be other
languages that can do this. At least good old LISP can.

ingo

Post a reply to this message