Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!lth.se!newsuser
From: Dan@dna.lth.se (Dan Oscarsson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs
Subject: Re: Writing Postscript code....
Message-ID: <1990Jun3.124917.11694@lth.se>
Date: 3 Jun 90 12:49:17 GMT
References: <53478@wlbr.IMSD.CONTEL.COM> <506@cvbnetPrime.COM>
Sender: newsuser@lth.se (LTH network news server)
Organization: Computer Science, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Lines: 20

In article <506@cvbnetPrime.COM> aperez@cvbnet.UUCP (Arturo Perez x6739) writes:
>
>Anyway, all I know about Postscript is that it's ugly and proprietary (not 
>necessarily the same thing :-).
>
>What makes Postscript so hard (or easy) to program in?  And why should we even
>want to write filesystems in a language designed for page description?
>
>Why isn't someone proposing a language designed for something a little more
>general?  For example, how about Smalltalk?
>
>Hey, just 'cause Postscript is out there doesn't mean we have to use it.  We
>could probably use any interpretable language, Lisp, Forth, or even Perl!
>

PostScript is nice and easy to program in. Smalltalk, Lisp, Forth are ugly.

I would never think of using Smalltalk or Lisp for a NeFS or NeWS server.

   Dan