faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) (11/14/88)
I asked Craig Hansen this question in a talk the other day, and didn't get a answer -- maybe somebody here would know. Why did NeXT use Display Postscript instead of Sun's NeWS? How much of a difference is there? Is there any reason to use DP instead of NeWS, or is NeXT just trying to be different? It seems like ignoring standards is a big part of their business stragegy... Wayne
abstine@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Arthur Stine) (11/14/88)
From article <7361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, by faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher): > I asked Craig Hansen this question in a talk the other day, and didn't > get a answer -- maybe somebody here would know. > > Why did NeXT use Display Postscript instead of Sun's NeWS? How much of > a difference is there? Is there any reason to use DP instead of NeWS, > or is NeXT just trying to be different? It seems like ignoring > standards is a big part of their business stragegy... > > Wayne Whats not 'standard' about display PostScript? if you accept that postscript is a standard, and X windows is a standard, then what isn't standard about display postscript? who says that Sun is the only company that comes up with 'standards'? art stine sr network engineer clarkson u
caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) (11/15/88)
In article <1669@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> abstine@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Arthur Stine) writes: >From article <7361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, by faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher): }> Why did NeXT use Display Postscript instead of Sun's NeWS? How much of }> a difference is there? Is there any reason to use DP instead of NeWS, }> or is NeXT just trying to be different? It seems like ignoring }> standards is a big part of their business stragegy... }Whats not 'standard' about display PostScript? if you accept that postscript }is a standard, and X windows is a standard, then what isn't standard }about display postscript? who says that Sun is the only company that comes }up with 'standards'? Well, they didn't use X... Display Postscript as such is pretty standard, I think, but the windowing system they put on it is proprietary. Saw one the other night. It's been a long time since I've had my socks knocked off like that. Probably not since Macintosh appeared. I don't know if it will seize the marketplace, ultimately, and it was still kind of buggy (running version 0.6 of the OS, not the one they'll be sending buyers) but even so, I was astonished. -Antonio Romero romero@confidence.princeton.edu
chet@pirate.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) (11/15/88)
In article <7361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >Why did NeXT use Display Postscript instead of Sun's NeWS? How much of >a difference is there? Is there any reason to use DP instead of NeWS, >or is NeXT just trying to be different? It seems like ignoring >standards is a big part of their business stragegy... NeWS is a standard? C'mon... If any window system for Unix machines is `standard', it has to be X. Besides, there are a lot more macs out there than Unix machines running X, so if anything is really a `standard' it's the mac -- and you should see how much DEC is trying to make the VAXstation look like a Mac with DECWindows for X11 (no smiley; read the style guide). Chet Ramey chet@cwjcc.CWRU.EDU Chet Ramey chet@cwjcc.CWRU.EDU Network Management Group chet@alpha.CES.CWRU.EDU Andrew R. Jennings Computing Center chet@pirate.CWRU.EDU Case Western Reserve University
aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) (11/16/88)
>In article <7361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >>Why did NeXT use Display Postscript instead of Sun's NeWS? How much of >>a difference is there? Is there any reason to use DP instead of NeWS, >>or is NeXT just trying to be different? It seems like ignoring >>standards is a big part of their business stragegy... NeXT is competing with Sun, no? Aside from any technical issues (I've not seen either NeWS or DP personally), they probably wouldn't want to do anything that might be conceived as a concession to their competitors. . . -- @disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my employer, my GIGI, or my 11/34) beak is@>beak is not Anthony A. Datri @SysAdmin(Stepstone Corporation) stpstn!aad
domo@riddle.UUCP (Dominic Dunlop) (11/29/88)
In article <7361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >Why did NeXT use Display Postscript instead of Sun's NeWS? How much of >a difference is there? Is there any reason to use DP instead of NeWS, >or is NeXT just trying to be different? It seems like ignoring >standards is a big part of their business stragegy... Er. NeWS a standard? Sun would have liked it to be a standard, but, unlike -- say -- NFS and SPARC, it hasn't caught outside Sun: X is sweeping it aside even if, arguably, X isn't addressing quite the same problem as NeWS. (Hell, corporate deceision makers don't want to be bothered with little details like that.) PostScript, on the other hand, is a de-facto standard, and to me, Display PostScript looks to me like an obvious next step (groan), provided that its performace is adequate. According to what I've heard of the NeXT cube, it is. Certainly on the Mac, living with QuickDraw on the screen and PostScript on the printer can be a problem. Can't it? You could even (if you wanted to play the devil's advocate) argue that those who don't have a (possibly optional) migration path to Display PostScript are the ones who are ingnoring standards... -- Dominic Dunlop domo@sphinx.co.uk domo@riddle.uucp
landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (12/01/88)
>In article <7361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU > (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >>Why did NeXT use Display Postscript instead of Sun's NeWS? How much of >>a difference is there? Is there any reason to use DP instead of NeWS, >>or is NeXT just trying to be different? It seems like ignoring >>standards is a big part of their business stragegy... I'm not much of a PostScript expert, but NeWS is also based on PostScript. Many of the extensions to PostScript in NeWs are written *in* PostScript, and hence should be easily portable to any PS machine. In article <941@riddle.UUCP> domo@riddle.UUCP (Dominic Dunlop) writes: >Er. NeWS a standard? Sun would have liked it to be a standard, but, >unlike -- say -- NFS and SPARC, it hasn't caught outside Sun: X is >sweeping it aside even if, arguably, X isn't addressing quite the same >problem as NeWS. (Hell, corporate deceision makers don't want to be >bothered with little details like that.) NeWS and X11 are being integrated - you'll be able to write NeWS and X11 applications, and have them work on the same screen under the same windowing system. Howard A. Landman landman@hanami.sun.com UUCP: sun!hanami!landman
nobody@mimsy.UUCP (Nobody) (12/19/88)
--text follows this line--
Glenn,
From: don@brillig.umd.edu (Don Hopkins)
Path: brillig.umd.edu!don
Is there any effort at Adobe to make your extension to Red Book
PostScript compatible with the NeWS extension? Display PostScript and
NeWS each have a different set of extensions to Red Book PostScript,
but where they overlap, are the names the same? And in those cases,
are the arguments the same?
Some examples of the types of NeWS extension I mean:
currentpath % - => path
setpath % path => -
currentstate % - => graphics_state
setstate % graphics_state => -
copyarea % dx dy => -
undef % dict key => -
dictbegin % - => - (new dict pushed on dict stack)
dictend % - => dict (popped from dict stack)
case % value {key {proc} key key {proc} ... /Default {proc}} => -
append % obj1 obj2 => obj3
printf % formatstring arrayarg => -
sprintf % formatstring arrayarg => sting
stringbbox % string => x y w h
I don't have the Display PostScript documentation yet, but I'm
ordering it soon. I'm looking forward to reading about it, and even
further forward to using it!
I think it would be a great idea to make NeWS and Display PostScript
compatible. What do you people at Adobe think of Display PostScript
"clones"? I hope you don't find the inevitable alarming. I certianly
think people would be encouraged to write Display PostScript
applications, if they knew they would run on top of X11/NeWS as well.
Is there any reason that NeWS couldn't be programmed to emulate
Display PostScript? Is there anything about Display PostScript's
model of processes, drawing surfaces, interprocess and network
communication, that couldn't be simulated in NeWS by a simple
compatibility package, and maybe a few gratuitious server extensions?
NeWS could easily be taught to understand the pswrap byte encoding,
and communicate with Display PostScript clients. Adobe hasn't gone to
any effort to make Display PostScript incompatible with NeWS, have
they? (Like giving the function that closes a network connection the
two character name "^C". ;-)
Does Adobe have any plans about adopting a classing mechanism? Have
you considered Owen Densmore's public domain object oriented
PostScript programming package, class.ps? It's some really elegant
code, written in Red Book PostScript, and it's very well matched with
the PostScript language and imaging model. It makes PostScript into a
Smalltalk-like programming environment! Now there's a version
supporting multiple inheritance. I really enjoy programming in object
oriented PostScript, and I want to see the PostScript language evolve
to its full potential. Standard Common object oriented PostScript
would be a good thing!
-Doniau@ukc.ac.uk (I.A.Utting) (12/20/88)
In article <15066@mimsy.UUCP> don@brillig.umd.edu.UUCP (Don Hopkins) writes:
->Is there any effort at Adobe to make your extension to Red Book
->PostScript compatible with the NeWS extension? [ ... eg. ]
->currentpath % - => path
->setpath % path => -
->currentstate % - => graphics_state
->setstate % graphics_state => -
->copyarea % dx dy => -
->undef % dict key => -
->dictbegin % - => - (new dict pushed on dict stack)
->dictend % - => dict (popped from dict stack)
->case % value {key {proc} key key {proc} ... /Default {proc}} => -
->append % obj1 obj2 => obj3
->printf % formatstring arrayarg => -
->sprintf % formatstring arrayarg => sting
->stringbbox % string => x y w h
While agreeing entirely with your general point, at least the last 5 (7?) of
these are implementable directly in Red Book PostScript, although it would
be nice if they were "officially sanctioned" by Adobe.
->Does Adobe have any plans about adopting a classing mechanism? Have
->you considered Owen Densmore's public domain object oriented
->PostScript programming package, class.ps?
Is this generally available? How can I get hold of details, or even a copy?
Ian.