On 31 May 2010 00:20, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 30, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> On 30 May 2010 23:08, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
