Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!rutgers!bellcore!messy!mo
From: mo@messy.bellcore.com (Michael O'Dell)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs
Subject: Re: Writing Postscript code....
Message-ID: <23683@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 29 May 90 16:16:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: bellcore.23683
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: mo@messy.UUCP (Michael O'Dell)
Organization: Center for Chaotic Repeatabilty
Lines: 21

If the concerns about Postscript is that is is hard to write
en masse, then having a C compiler which generates
Postscript should alleviate a lot of those concerns (the
meta-discussion of whether C is a programming language as well
isn't appropriate for this group, and is moot as well).

Further, if one looks closely at the existing NFS protocol
and the NeFS built-ins, one will discover that it takes
very little Postscript to implement most of what you
really want to do.  By all means, a certain amount of
reason should prevail, like: I would not recommened an
attempt to implement a database system in Postscript so
it can be downloaded to the server!!!

But by the same token, I have read (but admittedly not
written much) NeWS code done with the Class system, and
it certainly doesn't read as awful as some would imply.
Have people been badly burned and are speaking from hard-won
experience here?

	-Mike