Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!cxt105
From: CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: How to call the QuickDraw Bottlenecks from custom bottlenecks?
Message-ID: <90293.122149CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 90 16:21:49 GMT
References: <117652@tiger.oxy.edu> <1562@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
 <1990Oct20.044902.11853@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 27

Serious question coming up....

In article <1990Oct20.044902.11853@agate.berkeley.edu>,
deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Ben Haller) says:
>
>  Now of course it is silly to imagine code beating an accelerator card.  So
>even if you hand-code your graphics, it's probably a good idea to check and
>see if QuickDraw is faster, and if it is, use it.  But if it isn't...and you
>know how to do the same job better...why not do it.  I'm really sick of
>using QuickDraw.  It's slow, and it produces mathematically incorrect
>results.                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

Personally, I'm shocked.  The Quickdraw chapter of IM I goes to *SUCH*
great lengths talking about the mathematical foundation of QuickDraw, and
now I discover that it's a lot of hoo-haw....

What are the documented shortcomings of QuickDraw along these lines?  IM
claims (of course) that if you're careful, you'll never suffer from "end-
point paranoia" or any such malady, but just what is *really* going wrong
in there?

-------
Christopher Tate                   |
                                   |      In space, no one can
cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu               |         hear you sneeze.
{...}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cxt105  |
cxt105@psuvm.bitnet                |