I attended a C++ class, oh a long time ago, I was told I should attend, due to a personal circumstance I had to quit after one class, it is a powerful language, I knew a pharmacist who took a C++ class in India, he quit cause he told me it got to damn hard, now he gives medication, he could kill someone, what a change :)
::Christopher:: > > On 21 June 2013 18:33, Raffaele Fragapane <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > If anything my only gripe with fabric right now is that they keep > referring to TDs as the slow children of RnD, as if being a TD > means you can cobble together a script as long as you can chain > run it to debug, but God forbid you'd be able to run a compiler :p > > > There's a big difference between a trained software engineer that can > write multithreaded C++ and the standard TD (that I see most > consistently across studios) that can write a bit of C++ but is most > comfortable with Python/MEL etc. Finding a domain expert in software > engineering that's also a domain expert in VFX is quite challenging - > most TDs do not fit this description. What we see is a lot of people > that know exactly what they want to achieve, but don't have the time, > inclination or skillset to write it in C++. That might not fit your > definition of a TD, but outside of large studios I don't meet many TDs > that are C++ programmers - they self-identify as such. > > You're correct in saying that the actual value of KL is in the various > multi-threading paradigms (and the ease of access to them). However, > having spent the first 18 months of our existence trying to market a > language and a multithreading engine, we realised that nobody cares :) > Instead we simplified the technical message to "KL is a high-level > language like Python, these are normally slow but KL is as fast as > highly optimized C++. This means people that are comfortable with > high-level languages can now write high performance code". > > In reality, nobody cares about that much either. What people want to > know is "so what can I do that I couldn't do before?". So it might end > up being a bit simplistic or patronizing to people that understand the > technology, but the intent is to try and make it easy to understand > why what we're doing is valuable. Marketing a platform to everyone is > difficult - if we make it so technical people are satisfied from the > outset, then we lose everyone else. Now we're showing actual > solutions, it becomes more interesting to understand 'how?' - so we > might have to adapt a bit. You'll be pleased to know we're working > with a PR agency who want to rewrite all of our copy :) > > The last thing I'll say is that the dynamic compilation is as > important as the multi-threading - speed of development, ease of > deployment, portability of code and outright performance. We used to > message heavily around this and it didn't get us very far. >
