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 <[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
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
