Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!gaynor
From: gaynor@topaz.rutgers.edu (Silver)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Why I'm suspicious of NeWS
Message-ID: <18064@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: 14 Feb 88 16:46:40 GMT
References: <2940@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3851@megaron.arizona.edu> <2945@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 20
Keywords: [No bashing enclosed.]

> NeWS programming requires you to know two radically different
> languages (extended PostScript and, presumably, C) and switch
> between them quickly; X only requires one (for now, C or Common
> Lisp; other languages such as Ada will presumably be added as well).
> Some people at USENIX said that NeWS was more fun for hackers
> because of the interpretive element involved.  X is probably as much
> fun (except for the more limited imaging model) under a C
> interpreter such as Saber-C or under a LISP interpreter (disclaimer:
> I've used X under Saber C, but not CLX or NeWS).

The point about learning and switching languages is invalid for the
same reason that a container whose volume is 50% occupied by water is
both half full and half empty.  You either learn the language
(NeWS-extended PostScript) or learn the protocol (the X protocall).
Besides, we all know at least two programming languages.  I have no
problem going from Lisp to C to sh to Pascal to ...
				 ___
				 \o/
			  Cheers, V [Ag]
				 _|_