sg04@GTE.COM (Steven Gutfreund) (12/29/89)
I tried this before, but let me try once more: Does anyone have useful opinions on the advantages of HOOPS vs. PHIGS. Are there better packages than either. Which package is more likely to suceed? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutfreund@gte.com GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jch@apollo.HP.COM (Jan Hardenbergh) (01/04/90)
> From: sg04@GTE.COM (Steven Gutfreund) > Date: 28 Dec 89 16:25 GMT > Does anyone have useful opinions on the advantages of HOOPS vs. PHIGS. > Are there better packages than either. Which package is more likely > to suceed? All I know about HOOPS is that it is object oriented and has been around at least since 1986 SIGGRAPH. I know a bit more about PHIGS ( by which I mean the combination of ANSI PHIGS88 and PHIGS-PLUS ). I think that PHIGS is a good match for exploiting graphics hardware. Most people who produce graphics hardware sell native PHIGS implementations. These implementations are starting to rival the proprietary graphics packages in performance. If you are looking for whiz-bang features of particular hardware then proprietary graphics packages that come with that hardware are worth checking out. If you are more concerned with flexibility and extensibility than with performance then an object oriented package is worth checking out. HOOPS gets mentioned a far amount. In the X world there is Interviews, which is also an object oriented graphics package. PHIGS, which has been a standard for just about a year now already has major applications using it. Interviews and HOOPS will proboably also "succeed". Hope this general answer to some general questions helps, -Jan Hardenbergh - jch@apollo.hp.com - HP/Graphics Technology@Apollo