Oskar45 wrote:@squeen: I apologize for having been sarcastic. But I still believe rewriting Maya from scratch isn't really as easy as you seem to imply
Hey, no worries! Certainly the full suite of functionality of Maya would take years to replicate. But, as I did--leverage our existing scene graph lib to create a relatively simple modeling program with a Maya like front-end (no MEL!)--was only a couple of days of work (as I said very preliminary). However, we can already build from basic primatives, smooth and fix surface normals, edit materials and textures, group/ungroup, adjust camera parameters, animate trajectories and extracting model points using inverse projection (the last two features being the immediate motivation of the exercise). Allowing myself the luxury of a long view, I can only see it getting better with time. The real gist of what I'm trying to share is my own wonder at how easy it was to come this far--a useful tool (to us at least)--with only a small effort. Each of us has such amazing computational power at our finger tips, yet so many folk are content to be dependent on what software vendor sling our way. The open source "revolution" (sorry I'm getting preachy again) was more about personal empowerment than it was a new paradigm of software development blah blah blah. But my confession is, "I'm hooked!"--a complete do-it-yourself addict. I can't seem to stop writing software to suite my own needs! And like most fanatics, sometimes I can't resist trying to "convert" the masses. Again, the reward is only partially what you produce, but mostly what you learn in the process. For example, scripting Radiance may be fun, but it doesn't teach your much about how light and materials interactions are modeled--what assumptions are made and where they break apart. The latter is where the real fun begins. Clearly Dave Ward thought so when he (single handedly) tackled the project.
On the other hand...time is precious, choose your battles.