Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!xylogics!merk!alliant!dud
From: dud@Alliant.COM (W.A."Dudley" Gaman)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: informal survey
Keywords: PHIGS
Message-ID: <3847@alliant.Alliant.COM>
Date: 8 May 90 20:49:25 GMT
References: <4a45a410.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Reply-To: dud@alliant.Alliant.COM (W.A."Dudley" Gaman)
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, San Jose, CA
Lines: 21

In article <4a45a410.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> hevesh_c@apollo.HP.COM (Cathy Hevesh) writes:
>
>there is a lot of resistance to using and/or 
>porting to PHIGS for graphics applications. 
>Is this true and if so, why?
>
There is usually resistance to change, however PHIGS has been selected as
the 3-D extention to X (PEX) and as the parallel graphics library in the
Intel/Alliant i860-based Parallel Architecture eXtended (PAX) standard.	
While it is hard to create a graphics library which will suit everyone's
needs, and while standards tend to fall somewhat behind the technology
curve, PHIGS (and PHIGS+) can handle the requirements of a large number
of users.  Add this to the benefits of preservation of software investment
(ie. it can be ported to other PHIGS platforms without changing source code)
and high-performance available in systems which use PHIGS as their native
instruction set and, IMHO, you have a package which is here to stay for a
while.  In my experience (sales support) I am seeing more situations in
which PHIGS is a requirement.  

dud
.