Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!woody
From: woody@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Woody Baker @ Eagle Signal)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: PostScript vs TrueType?
Summary: interpreters
Message-ID: <1502@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 90 00:11:03 GMT
References: <9724@goofy.Apple.COM> <438@three.mv.com> <2120@ux.acs.umn.edu>
Organization: a guest of Unicom Systems Development, Austin
Lines: 23

In article <2120@ux.acs.umn.edu>, clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes:
> In article <438@three.mv.com> cory@three.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:
> >chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes:
> 
> I would presume that these non-68K-based PostScript engines have machine
> by the printer.  In some fictional printer controlled by an 80486, instead of
> a PostScript program being interpreted by a PostScript interpreter running on
> the 80486, you'd have curve equations being rendered by 80486 machine code.
> 

Well, I think that  the bezier curve stuff in Postscript (as well as
the rest of the primatives) are really 'C' programs that are compiled
into 68000 or whatever code.  I don't think that there would be much
diffrence once the parameters are set up for the function.  It does
appear that the Adobe interpreter uses sort of a PCODE mechanism, or
at least a compact tokenization.  I have dumped some of the built in
operators out, especially things like dictionaries, and there does
appear to be a token $82  that marks some sort of pseudo opcode.
I have not dug to deeply, but once you have gotten, say the parameters
to your curve the actual point generation is not handled interpretively.

Cheers
Woody