Are there formal plans to do this at this point, do you know? Is
LBL going to continue to maintain radsite?
Randolph
···
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:19:58PM -0400, Georg Mischler wrote:
Speaking more generally, I'd like to put in a strong vote for
ansifying Radiance completely. Even though this might look like a
highly tedious task (and probably is), I'd expect it to uncover
and eliminate at least a one or two dozen subtle bugs throughout
the code. In the long run, it would make all future development a
lot easier. Of course, if Radiance were to be put on public CVS
later this year, there's no reason why you would have to make
this conversion yourself...
Georg Mischler wrote:
Randolph Fritz wrote:
> >
> > Speaking more generally, I'd like to put in a strong vote for
> > ansifying Radiance completely. Even though this might look like a
> > highly tedious task (and probably is), I'd expect it to uncover
> > and eliminate at least a one or two dozen subtle bugs throughout
> > the code. In the long run, it would make all future development a
> > lot easier. Of course, if Radiance were to be put on public CVS
> > later this year, there's no reason why you would have to make
> > this conversion yourself...
> >
>
> Are there formal plans to do this at this point, do you know? Is
> LBL going to continue to maintain radsite?
>From my side, that was more like a hidden suggestion... 
It certainly would make a lot of sense though.
positively a good idea. IMHO a full rewrite would be a better
investment, timewise, than an ANSIfication, at least for the existing
core rendering. I'm not saying the core is badly written or
malfunctioning. Just that any code tends to grow over the years and
accumulated insights are sometimes best served when starting freshly
with a blank sheet. - Greg ?
Peripheral programs (practically everything apart from
rpict/rview/rtrace) will be a lot easier to port to ANSI-C and could be
dealed with in a parallel way.
Problems of the technical infrastruture (like setting up and running a
CVS server) are very certainly easily solved (e.g. on this machine which
handles the mailing list).
cheers
Peter
···
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:19:58PM -0400, Georg Mischler wrote:
--
pab-opto, Freiburg, Germany, www.pab-opto.de
Peter Apian-Bennewitz wrote:
Georg Mischler wrote:
>
> Randolph Fritz wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Speaking more generally, I'd like to put in a strong vote for
> > > ansifying Radiance completely. Even though this might look like a
> > > highly tedious task (and probably is), I'd expect it to uncover
> > > and eliminate at least a one or two dozen subtle bugs throughout
> > > the code. In the long run, it would make all future development a
> > > lot easier. Of course, if Radiance were to be put on public CVS
> > > later this year, there's no reason why you would have to make
> > > this conversion yourself...
> > >
> >
> > Are there formal plans to do this at this point, do you know? Is
> > LBL going to continue to maintain radsite?
>
> >From my side, that was more like a hidden suggestion...
> It certainly would make a lot of sense though.
positively a good idea. IMHO a full rewrite would be a better
investment, timewise, than an ANSIfication, at least for the existing
core rendering. I'm not saying the core is badly written or
malfunctioning. Just that any code tends to grow over the years and
accumulated insights are sometimes best served when starting freshly
with a blank sheet. - Greg ?
I second that. Additionally we might consider stepping up to C++. A
package the size of RADIANCE screams for modularity. I'm not saying we
should make liberal use of those mindbending abstractions OOP has to
offer, but simply *organise* the code and facilitate extensions. Of
course this has to be weighed against potential portability problems.
Can C++ compilers be taken for granted on all platforms nowadays?
--Roland
···
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:19:58PM -0400, Georg Mischler wrote:
--
"Life is too short for core dumps"
