[x3d-public] Comments on Open USD core specification v1.0

[John Carlson]

If you’re going to make OpenUSD language this complicated, maybe just write
a subset of Java, C# or C++?  You can make the language domain-specific
easily.

glTF and X3D win through a simple user language and a complex schema
language.   The JSON grammar fits on a couple of pages.

If people actually want a declarative C++, check out CPPON.  I leave off
Java because of “code to large” issues, which can be overcome with Java
languages (other than Clojure).   I am hoping to advance the C++ binding
with nesting, once  the add and set methods return this.  Until then:

https://github.com/coderextreme/CPPON

What’s the possibility of turning FreeWRL or other into a library or C++
binding?  Doug?

Note that CPPON currently doesn’t really have X3D types built into the
grammar.  That would be how we make it domain-specific.

I’m not really on the “invent a new language” kick, since there are already
plenty of good ones.  Just pick one that already exists.  XML and JSON have
schemas.  Spend your time writing schemas and other domain-specific stuff
in your grammars.

If someone has a good reason why 3D requires a whole new language,
especially one this complicated, speak up.

Sure, programmer types love complexity, ugh!

I guess people need jobs.  Hmm!

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20260209/c46dcd5b/attachment.html>