Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!sce!scs!Knight
From: Knight@scs.Carleton.CA (Alan Knight)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: graphics
Keywords: Smalltalk, graphics
Message-ID: <693@scs.Carleton.CA>
Date: 3 Aug 89 21:11:10 GMT
References: <791@kinetics.UUCP>
Reply-To: Knight@scs.UUCP (Alan Knight)
Organization: Computer Science, Carleton University, Canada
Lines: 15


   The graphics in the Smalltalk book (I expect, I haven't seen it)
   represent what is delivered to the screen of the typical user.  
   Since the resolution of printers is much higher than that of the
   screen, they look very poor on paper, especially if magnified.    
   Whereas packages like MacDraw send postscript to the printer, which
   defines things in terms of shapes rather than bits, the output looks
   very good.  In Smalltalk (both /V and -80 I believe) the only printing
   facilities for drawings I have seen simply print the bitmap form rather
   than the actual shapes.
      There is no reason why this has to be done that way, and I have 
      vaguely been thinking of doing something like it when I have some
      free time, as it would be useful for a project I am working on.  I 
      expect that it even has been done somewhere, it just isn't in the
      base system.  You're certainly right that it ought to be.