[Radiance-general] CVS?

[Roland Schregle]

Peter Apian-Bennewitz wrote:
> 
> Georg Mischler wrote:
> >
> > Randolph Fritz wrote:
> >
> > > 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...
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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

-- 
"Life is too short for core dumps"