There is the downside that I don't know Python at all, and learning yet another object-oriented language with completely different syntax isn't high on my list of priorities. That said, if we can get past the support issues on various platforms, I have no problem with Schorsch and others making contributions they wish to support on an ongoing basis, or ones that are unlikely to require support.
For this reason, I don't have much enthusiasm for converting something as complex as genBSDF to Python, where I couldn't understand or fix any problems that arise in future. Cheers, -Greg > From: Georg Mischler <schor...@schorsch.com> > Subject: [Radiance-dev] Python scripts for Radiance > Date: March 21, 2016 9:02:03 AM PDT > > Hi again! > > I have converted some of the original Radiance shell scripts into Python. > https://github.com/gmischler/PyRad > > The examples so far are exact drop-in replacements of the original csh > or Perl versions, but with some extra functionality and benefits. > > * usage instructions (-H) > * progress report (-V) > * dry-run mode (-N) > * detailed error diagnostics > * compatible with Python 2.7 and Python 3.x > * self contained (all functionality can be combined in one file) > * truly cross-platform (no dependencies other than Python and Radiance) > * direct process management (no intermediate shell calls) > * immune to whitespace in file names > * tamper-proof use of temporary files > * instrumented for building a single-file *.exe with pyinstaller > > > The current selection is still small, the examples were chosen for > varying reasons: > > * falsecolor.py > This one has been sitting on my disk (in much less refined form) for > many years. Now I've updated it to using color palettes and to satisfy > all the points above. > > * phisto.py > * rlux.py > * pveil.py > Those three became test candidates because they are simple and have > a straightforward command line. > > I'm looking for ideas (and contributions) on where to continue next. > > Good candidates are scripts that are commonly used. > It is also very helpful if a script includes documentation about what > it's actually supposed to do. Ideally with a set of test data to > verify that it really does that. > Actually, a solid set of test cases for the current collection would > be very helpful too. > > Some of the csh/Perl scripts present a challenge, because they have > rather unconventional command lines. In those cases, we might want to > consider changing the interface to something more regular, provided > this is possible. > > Not all of the existing scripts are really worth the effort. > The Python versions with the extra functionality are definitively not > as simple as the originals. Flexibility and safety has its price. > On the other hand, they will definitively be *much* easier to maintain. > > Many of the current scripts (csh *and* Perl) blindly assume the > existence of a unix type shell, a number of other posix tools > (grep/awk/sed/etc.), and they often fail with spaces in file and > directory names. Fixing this would introduce additional overhead > in any language. > > > Why Python? > > For developers, it is simply one of the most productive tools around. > Python has grown into one of the most popular languages just by its > practical merits, without any corporate backing, and without a very > strong web appeal. > > Most Radiance users will already have it installed, no matter the > platform. > > On unix, scripts can be invoked by "#!" (like any other). > > Any script can be "compiled" into a standalone executable file. > This is important on Windows, because invoking scripts (Python, > *.bat, or otherwise) from within programs is a real hassle there. > In fact, it ended up being the simplest way to get winimage to > perform falsecolor analysis. > (This could also be done with Perl, but...) > > > I expect Python to play an increasing role in Radiance development in > the future, with or without my own involvement. So we might just as > well embrace it. > > I would like to suggest adding Python versions of the most commonly > used scripts to the distribution. There are several possible > configurations how this could be done, so we'd have to discuss a > number of technical details first. And yes, verification before > inclusion would be an important step. > > Opinions? > > -schorsch _______________________________________________ Radiance-dev mailing list Radiance-dev@radiance-online.org http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-dev
