Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gblock
From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release
Message-ID: <11260@uwm.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 91 05:48:08 GMT
References: <672G.izu1@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Reply-To: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Distribution: comp
Lines: 54
Originator: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <672G.izu1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger):
> So NeXT will improve the performance of Display Postsript in future
> revisions of the OS.  The did when they went from 1.0 to 2.0.

I said it could be better, but not enough to warrant slowing down
programs that really don't need it.  Look at the Mac!  They survive
with only scaleable outline font technology.  I imagine I will do the same.

> The megapixel display is a nice crisp 92dpi display, and there are
> times when you image an entire 8"1/2 by 11".  It only takes a split
> second.  Can there be that much of a difference when going from 92dpi
> to 300dpi?

Well, as you've answered yourself, more than 3 times.  And try to
remember that there aren't exactly any 68040 printers...  for that
matter, nothing really close to that performance that I know of...

>    No, but you could write in 68040 assembly...  Or are you forced into
>    Objective C as well as DP???
> 
> You're not forced to program in Objective C, but you must use it if
> you want to use the Interface Builder because it has support for
> run-time binding(think that's the term).  You can always use C or C++
> and resort to the old fashion way of actually writing code.
>  

Gee, it seems to work here... :)  So, it's a little more work.  So
there are no interface builders for non-objective C?  Isn't that like
having one forced decision?  I mean, even us little amigoids have ones
for c, assembly, and others...

> 
> I believe(IMHO) that throwing hardware into a machine is the solution
> to the "software crisis".  I'm looking forward to the day when most
> programmers can throw away their C compilers and program in Smalltalk
> or some other high-level language.
> 

You could program in smalltalk, if you really wanted to...  I've seen
it (at least) for Macs.  And WHY would you need to give something more
hardware, when it can still be efficient if you'd just do a little
work??  If they can do it with 2.0, they can do it with that
floor-polisher you call Mach...

Greg


And if I haven't said so, HAPPY EARTH DAY.  I hope all of you continue
to do your part to save our world.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer.
Why?  He doesn't know I'm doing this.
								-Wubba