Stream: brlcad

Topic: graphics drawing language


view this post on Zulip starseeker (Jun 23 2020 at 00:03):

Hey @Sean , what was the name of that interactive drawing language you were showing me a while back? Some sort of 2D graphics description language, but I'm blanking on what it was called.

view this post on Zulip Sean (Jun 23 2020 at 00:04):

Processing

view this post on Zulip Erik (Jun 23 2020 at 00:34):

logo?

view this post on Zulip starseeker (Jun 23 2020 at 13:55):

https://processing.org/

view this post on Zulip Sean (Jun 25 2020 at 12:52):

It's worth pointing out that mathematica/octave and matlab have a roughly similar facility, not as well designed but as powerful if not more powerful.

view this post on Zulip starseeker (Jun 25 2020 at 13:04):

I was just kicking idle ideas around for what a generic libdm/fb 2D drawing API should look like - right now we've got a bunch of functions like drawLine3D, drawPoint2D, drawVList, etc. Was wondering if using a processing-ish set of commands as the wrapper API for the 2D drawing portions of the display manager's API might be cleaner, but unfortunately that would be a pretty major (and disruptive) migration to attempt.

view this post on Zulip Sean (Jun 25 2020 at 13:04):

would definitely be cleaner

view this post on Zulip Sean (Jun 25 2020 at 13:07):

the way to go would probably be to just try and implement processing/octave/matlab as a libged command with subcommands that are or are like the processing API, then make lib changes accordingly to support each new subcommand.

view this post on Zulip starseeker (Jun 25 2020 at 13:11):

/me nods - makes sense. The thing to do first then would probably be to consolidate as many of the libdm backends as possible, to make it easier to rework the backend implementations to support such an API.

view this post on Zulip Sean (Jun 25 2020 at 13:12):

that could all be for naught though

view this post on Zulip starseeker (Jun 25 2020 at 13:13):

how so?

view this post on Zulip Sean (Jun 25 2020 at 13:14):

it's possible there's already enough flexibility to do everything processing allows, or that only a couple trivial changes are needed to support feature xxx

view this post on Zulip Sean (Jun 25 2020 at 13:14):

don't get me wrong, I like an architecture refactoring cleanup

view this post on Zulip Sean (Jun 25 2020 at 13:14):

just may or may not really be needed to support something like processing

view this post on Zulip starseeker (Jun 25 2020 at 13:15):

Ah, gotcha. Staring at things like the ogl_draw* function list has been making me wince

view this post on Zulip starseeker (Jun 25 2020 at 13:15):

conflating issues

view this post on Zulip starseeker (Jun 25 2020 at 13:17):

It may well be that this level of verbosity is needed - I've not put the time in to be sure one way or the other... Figured Processing would be a decent framework to use to decide "does it really need to look like this?"

view this post on Zulip Sean (Jun 25 2020 at 13:18):

just thinking through the processing api, there's not much we couldn't do today -- maybe ten%?

it'd definitely help as a model if reflected down through. I just suspect it'd amount to mostly a renaming-of-functions exercise, not actually adding/changing lib functionality.

view this post on Zulip starseeker (Jun 25 2020 at 13:19):

that'd actually be a lot better - much more potentially practical. Especially since we probably don't need all of Processing for our needs anyway, at least as a first cut


Last updated: Oct 09 2024 at 00:44 UTC