On 5/5/06, Dethe Elza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would a VPython implemented on top of PyOpenGL be useful? Right now > VPython lives in its own world and doesn't play nice with native > windows, or PyGame, or OpenGL, or X3D, or OS X, or... The argument > for making writing it the way they have it to get the performance > necessary for physics demos. Meanwhile, Python has gotten faster, > machines have gotten *much* faster, and PyOpenGL is getting faster by > moving to a ctypes-based implementation.
I think VPython grooves on having a very minimalist API. The documentation is only a couple of pages, if that. It's really designed to be friendly to like a CS0 new user, and does a pretty good job of that (I've certainly appreciated having it installed at PSU, where I teach pythonic mathematics). > Would a pythonic 3D API, a la VPython, that plays well with others be > a valuable component for the Squeakification of Python? Or are we > talking apples and oranges (pythons and rubies)? > Looking at Croquet and the latest Logo, I'm seeing 3D as the way we're going, which disqualifies PyGame except as it's a window to OpenGL. My understanding of OpenGL is it could certainly do the job, but we might want to develop a new API for it, more suitable for coding event-driven IDEs. But maybe that's already part of the spec. I know Blender codes all its control widgets inside the OpenGL context. Pretty strange looking, but so is Squeak. > > Given this engine, Python developers might write apps friendlier to > > young children, using animation and almost-no-typing-needed > > interfaces. We could compete with the newer Logos, which leave the > > older ones in the dust, visually speaking. > > How intricate an engine are you thinking? VPython is still fairly > primitive in its primitives, but a more open version might be > extensible to read data from X3D, 2nd Life, SketchUp, AvMotion > (character animation), etc. > I'm thinking like a serious game engine, like lives behind Quake and Half-Life 2 and like that. Quaternions anyone? > > The very same engine would have lots of applications in an adult > > context as well. > > I know I'd love to have a 3D environment that was both easy to use, > and extensible. > Me too. > > This is NOT about Python changing significantly as a language, moving > > to some new paradigm or yadda yadda. > > > > In my view, Python is a mature language undergoing consolidation, is > > not on the brink of some major overhaul. > > > > True, it's being reimplemented in C# for some platforms, as it was in > > Java (with Jim's leadership in both cases). > > > > The new graphics engine I envision might well be an outgrowth of that > > Mono/.NET effort. Only time will tell. > > > > In the meantime, we already have working, Ubuntu-compatible versions > > of Logo, Squeak and Python. > > > > My info is the Shuttleworth Foundation is in no way holding its breath > > waiting for these newer tools to come over the horizon, exciting > > though these may be. > > > > In terms of going ahead with implementation, we already have > > sufficient toyz. Curriculum writing is proceeding apace on that > > basis. > > But Guido has committed that a Squeak-like GUI platform would be > welcome. So we are talking about extending the libraries to be more > encompassing. I agree about not extending the syntax (any more than > is already happening for Python 3000). > > --Dethe I was at the meeting with Alan Kay from where he first sent out the call (not to this list). I think many elements of Squeak intrigue him. But exactly what "Squeak-like GUI" means is not yet well defined. For example Squeak isn't particularly 3D (unlike Croquet), yet I think that's where we need to be heading with this engine we're talking about. Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
