Re: spdl.... good or bad?

["jason bright" <jaybright(at)gmail.com>]

On 7/4/06, Matt Lind <speye_21(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I'd rather see something like XML

Here here.  A format where there already exists other parsers and validators and tools would be all kinds of wonderful.  I think most XSI developers have lost months off their lives fighting with SPDL syntax issues (which spdlcheck validates, but then explodes in ugly, unexpected, and untraceable ways later).

j

On 7/4/06, Matt Lind <speye_21(at)hotmail.com> wrote:

[Matt]
the issue isn't whether I use a SPDL or .mi file to define parameters, it's
the workflow for doing so.  Having to learn multiple API's to work within a
single application is ridiculous.  I can understand the divide between XSI
and mental ray, but having a distinct language that isn't native or friendly
to either is the part that's poor.  That's why I say abolish the SPDL and
move the parameter definitions to something more workable with the rest of
XSI.  Just to write a shader requires some knowledge of C/C++, JScript or
VBScript, SPDL, and possibly more languages/API's depending on your needs -
that's too much for a single tool.  Instead of a SPDL, I'd rather see
something like XML or HTML because it already supports embedded _javascript_
and is easy to manipulate to create the desired interface for the user.  It
would also work with the rest of XSI as it already supports XML/HTML in
Netview and other areas.  Consolidation is what I'd like to see.

I'd prefer a standalone mental ray license over SPDL or the dreamy .mi files
with Maya/Max, but nobody provides standlone ray licenses with the 3D app.
The downside to that, of course, is I cannot change parameter values easily
during testing without rendering a gazillion frames.