Re: PostScript?

[Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David_A Cobb writes:
 > But it was never intended for human consumption that I can see.  It is 
 > extraordinarily tough to program in.  If I look at what my word 
 > processor generates it is ugly as sin (even uglier than LISP).  
these two sentences are at variance. PostScript can be written very
elegantly, and some people find it very expressive. but mechanical
animals like Word write VERY BAD PostScript

 > It DOES NOT express "what" I want to print, but "how" the printer engine 
 > is to render bits on a "page."
well, I'd argue with that. saying
 (hello world) show
leaves a lot to the rendering engine, it isnt about bits

 > I see the list members talk about PDL ("page description language?") as 
 > a specific language - not a generic description.  I would really 
 > appreciate being pointed toward the spec/description of that.  If it is 
 > another language for describing what the human wishes to see, then again 
 > it doesn't seem like the same kind of critter as PostScript.
there is I seem to recall an ISO standard PDL, which is more or less
PostScript. my rule of thumb is that a PDL specifies the line breaks
and page breaks, something that TeX (say) does not normally require
you to do

 > defies logic, faster and cheaper processors are available but PostScript 
 > stays in the very high end devices.  Maybe it's one more proof that good 
Ghostscript, which is free, and includes most of PS Level 2 and PDF, works on
very humble computers very well

Sebastian


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist