webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (03/18/90)
In article <1968@ariel.unm.edu>, mdiehl@ariel.unm.edu (J. Michael Diehl) writes: > I think Gregory Gallaway made a good point: Computer Graphics is a rather new > topic and that few references are available on the topic. I'm studying Math > and Computer Science here at UNM and am interested in graphics. Computer Graphics is no newer than any other portion of Computer Science. Indeed, it ties more closely with the main tradition in Math and Natural Philosophy than anything else in Computer Science except perhaps Numerical Analysis (which has sometimes been called: Computer Graphics Without Pictures). The literature is monstrous. Really. There are tons of books on all manner of matters directly bearing on computer graphics. Every technical publisher has at least a dozen computer graphics books these days (at least 2 or 3 new from each publisher each year) -- and then there is the steady stream of conference proceedings, journals, and dissertations -- not to mention the books/articles written by mathematicians, engineers, and scientists, who have no interest in computer graphics but are addressing issues that are central to it. > I read this news group simply because I want to know what people are doing in > this area of study. I guess I COULD wait for the book.....in about 5 years! Actually it is very rare for anyone to talk about unpublished work in this group [ although it is not unusual for people to reinvent the wheel in this group :-) ]. Indeed, a case could be made that it lags at least 5 years behind the published literature (after all, it takes a bit of time for enough people to digest a new concept that a reasonable discussion on the matter can occur). But, since there are things published a 100 years ago that I am still trying to catch up on, this is hardly a problem. --- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) The multitude of books is making us ignorant. --- Voltaire.