Hi Igor, Thanks for investing time into this. I do not have much knowledge in this area, nor any free time at the moment, but I would gladly try to test. Cheers, Doru On 30 May 2010, at 23:34, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 31 May 2010 00:20, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 30 May 2010 23:08, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
cool post
Yeah, these things are quite interesting. Except that not much people actually interested in it :)
I do not think so. Good posts are read more that you believe. Now in mailing-list the numbers of mails cut the knowledge after a point.
But i posted here mainly to discuss these ideas. If we don't have a discussion, then we won't have a resolution, and its not matters how good post is or not, because a true value of any idea can be determined by considering all alternatives and discussing them. But maybe i'm a bit too hurry , because you mentioned that first things which needs to be done is to make current stuff working. The other thing is, that i am writing GL stuff from scratch (mostly), so i tend to pay more attention on design first, and then on implementation.
Here's another thing, which can be done right (if we want).
Rome/OpenVG Paths is actually nothing else than a special kind of more general thing - shape.
So, at very basis, we should have only two components for painting: shape and paint. And in fact we need to support only a single operation: fill the shape with given paint. (The path stroke could be seen as a special kind of fill)
So the question is: Really. Why we should constrain ourselves with specific things from a very starting, by cutting out a most basic (and abstact ideas) behind?
There are infinite number of ways, how one could define a shape. While paths is only a small, yet effective representation of shapes. In same way there are infinite number of ways how one could define a paint.
Then this looks like a strong basis for building-up a powerful & flexible graphics engine :)
I do not know. Do the other frameworks outside smalltalk use something else than paths?
Yes. In 3D you have meshes, NURB surfaces , constructive-solid geometry and tons of other stuff.
I think that we should start - making rome working. We are nearly there - test it - refactor it. - I would like to see the canvas for morphic30 too. - refactor the system to use that. stef
Yes. Yes. Yes :)
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Being happy is a matter of choice."