vacca@burdvax.UUCP (Dave Vacca) (03/16/85)
I am currently working on a graphics program based on curses. Is this
a good idea or should I be using something other than curses? What I am worried
about is portability. Also, what is the proper way to handle native control
sequences for a particular terminal using curses? If I am drawing lines on a
terminal, then when I attempt to run this same program on a completely different
type of terminal, how will I even know whether or not the same line-drawing
feature exists? I guess curses is necessarily limited in this way.
Also, do the new bit-mapped terminals make the curses package
obselete? And if they do, is there a graphics package being worked on
that allows for the same type of portability for bit-mapped terminals that
curses provides for fixed character set terminals?
- Signed,
Mr. Puzzledfaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (03/17/85)
> Also, do the new bit-mapped terminals make the curses package > obselete? And if they do, is there a graphics package being worked on > that allows for the same type of portability for bit-mapped terminals that > curses provides for fixed character set terminals? There are a few curses-type graphics packages available, including MFB, which was written here for use with CAD tools, and X, which is being written at MIT by Jim Gettys. I guess that the problem is that there are too many of them for one to be sure that one's programs won't have to be converted to use another sometime in the future. Here is a question for people who know more about this than I do: what is the best graphics package of this type that you have seen or used, and which do you think has the best chance now of becoming a standard like curses? Wayne