Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!voder!wlbr!awds26!mh
From: mh@awds26.imsd.contel.com (Mike Hoegeman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs
Subject: Re: Writing Postscript code....
Message-ID: <53478@wlbr.IMSD.CONTEL.COM>
Date: 30 May 90 19:35:23 GMT
References: <23683@bellcore.bellcore.com> <1990May30.030703.462@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@wlbr.IMSD.CONTEL.COM
Reply-To: mh@awds26.UUCP (Mike Hoegeman)
Organization: Contel FSD, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 29

In article <1990May30.030703.462@Neon.Stanford.EDU> pallas@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Joe Pallas) writes:
 >
 >The NeWS Class system is best described as an example of an
 >object-oriented language implemented in PostScript.  Granted, it is an
 >embedded implementation, so all of PostScript is exposed to the
 >programmer.  But its very existence is evidence of PostScript's
 >inadequacy as a programming language.
 >

Well... you can make this rather flippant comment about almost any programming
language. For example:

	"The very existence of the C standard library is evidence of C's
	inadequacy as a programming language."

Which is a pretty ridiculous statement. I've used PostScript quite a bit
(probably more than most of the PostScript flamers in previous postings)
and i find it similar to lisp in ease of use , maintainablilty, etc..

 >>Have people been badly burned and are speaking from hard-won
 >>experience here?
 >
 >I know I have and am.  I don't know about anyone else.

How have you been burned? This is, for the most part, genuine
curiousity. I'd be interested in hearing something more specific.

I don't have an opinion on NeFS one way or the other yet but this "I don't
like PostScript, it's icky" commentary is non-informative at best.