Xref: utzoo comp.text.tex:4063 comp.fonts:1673 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!ifistg!ifi!mattes From: mattes@azu.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Eberhard Mattes) Newsgroups: comp.text.tex,comp.fonts Subject: Re: brief comparison of 2 DOS Metafonts Message-ID: Date: 27 Nov 90 13:47:23 GMT References: <1990Nov16.200934.21562@ioe.lon.ac.uk> Sender: news@ifistg.uucp Organization: IfI, Univ. Stuttgart, W Germany Lines: 25 In-reply-to: teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk's message of 16 Nov 90 20:09:34 GMT In article <1990Nov16.200934.21562@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) writes: > I spent some time recently comparing sbmf and emmf: > [...] > In other words, both implimentations are excellent. Wayne Sullivan's > is a little faster (between 10% and 18%). His distribution now > includes sbmkbat.exe, a batch file writer that reads your > specifications for MF command line parameters and then writes a big > batch file to do the work (including gftopk, and putting things in the > right directories). sbmkbat is very good, and is only 9k compiled, as > against about 140k for mfjob. I would say the syntax of mfjob is a > little easier than the sbmkbat input, but hey, they're both okay. If you want to create a batch file using MFjob, you can use mfjob all m=lj /n | sed 1d;/^=/d >mfjob1.bat Or (if you don't have sed) use a text editor to remove the first line and all lines beginning with = from the MFjob output. Using a batch file saves memory (and therefore may speed up MF) but you don't have the error detection and log file saving features of MFjob. You can even change the batch file to call sbmf instead of `emmf'. BTW, Wayne Sullivan's METAFONT supports more graphics adapters: Hercules, for instance. -- Eberhard Mattes (mattes@azu.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de)