Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!uunet!cadence!cadence!dovich From: dovich@cadence.com (Steven J. Dovich; x272) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: X sucks (was: Re: Ware Ware Wizardjin) Message-ID: Date: 15 Apr 91 20:05:06 GMT References: <9104131319.AA01023@.nextserver.cs.stthomas.edu.cs.stthomas.edu..> Sender: usenet@cadence.com (USENET News) Organization: Cadence Design Systems/ACAE Div, Lowell MA Lines: 30 In-Reply-To: root@NEXTSERVER.CS.STTHOMAS.EDU's message of 13 Apr 91 11:22:31 GMT Let's not ignore our history here... PostScript does not pre-date image processing technology. And the imaging model used by X is the same one used by the bulk of image processing and synthesis algorithms. Hence that code (and user base) benefits most from the X imaging model and not the PostScript one. PostScript provides an abstraction. That is usually a good thing. Not every situation calls for the same abstractions. The real trick is knowing the limitations of each of the relevant abstractions. To paraphrase the old Mounds candy bar commercial... Sometimes you feel like PostScript... and sometimes you don't. Should all applications pay because some might benefit? And to tie this point back into the original discussion, how would using the PostScript imaging model contribute to reducing the cost penalties of software? Or would it encourage the proliferation of applications that ignore the cost of computing resources they consume? -- Steven J. Dovich Cadence Design Systems/ACAE Div. 2 Lowell Research Center Dr Phone: (508) 934-0272 Lowell, MA 01852-4995