Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!RIGEL.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU!moore
From: moore@RIGEL.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU (Dale Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Bad PostScript
Message-ID: <7093@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 27 Nov 89 14:39:36 GMT
References: <12877@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 55

>After seeing yet another sample of *lousy* PostScript generated by an
>application (this one Windows Designer), I'm very upset.
...

I agree.  Many utilities that generate PostScript assume that the output
will be done on an Apple LaserWriter.  Or worse yet, assume that some
specific prelude has been down loaded to the printer in advance.

>What I propose is that Adobe (or some enlightened soul) attempt to write
>a `validation' program.  This simple C program would ..

I don't see how it could possibly be simple.  From what little I understand
of PostScript, it would have to be nearly the entire interpreter.
Plus additional code for dealing with document structuring conventions.

>I'm sick of dealing with Adobe's poorly written and changing structuring
>conventions, and even more so with applications that don't make even an
>effort to comply.  Comments or thoughts?

The Adobe PostScript Document Structuring Specification is written nearly
as well (or should I say nearly as poorly) as most other technical documents.
Consider your favorite programming language, whether it be PostScript, C, 
or Pascal.  Nearly anyone can read the language spec, and say... 
"Gee I think I understand."  The only problem is when you write some code,
and try to run it through your compiler or interpreter.  The machine will
point out your most obvious mistakes.

Perhaps we, and the developers whose software generate PostScript, rely
too heavily on the machine to expose our shortcomings and misunderstandings.

I see two ways of dealing with companies that generate bogus PostScript.
	- Not buy their products, and let them know why.  Or tell
	the company that you disrecommend their product.
	- Publish a list of software that generates bogus PostScript
	and what in particular is wrong with the PostScript that
	they generate.  The difficult part with this is getting it
	published, as most trade rags will never, ever print a
	review that will not show the product in the best possible
	light.  When is the last time you read a review that said
	"This product is a real peice of crap."  Maybe it should be
	a bit like those consumer digest magazines.

I just don't think that Adobe can, or should be, the police force for
every possible company that generates or pretends to generate PostScript.

What they should, and perhaps already do, is to consult and offer
tools or services that will help the software house generate better
more robust PostScript.  I suspect that we are in agreement here.
But where we differ is that I think that Adobe might want to keep
these tools proprietary and as trade secrets.  And I suspect that
you would like to see them brought out into the public.

Oh well, I've rambled for much too long.

Dale Moore