Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!ncar!ico!rcd From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: Re: PostScript -- Stop Bashing Adobe Summary: brief response to some non-issues (low in substance) Message-ID: <1990Mar2.020837.749@ico.isc.com> Date: 2 Mar 90 02:08:37 GMT References: <9460@imagen.UUCP> Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO Lines: 63 As briefly as I can dispense with this... In article <9460@imagen.UUCP>, ib@apolling (Ivan N. Bach) writes: [citing my complaints about recent flaming] > I completely agree with you. I am discussing very important technical aspects > of the PostScript language, and proposing substantial improvements to that > language... Your initial "discussion" was a collection of innuendos attacking Adobe and PostScript, mostly unsupported by facts, and tackling isolated areas with no attempt at a cohesive solution. > Nobody but Apple and Adobe had a say in what the new world standard for storing > and transmitting image data should look like, and how it should be implemented. 1. PostScript is not a "standard for storing and transmitting image data." PostScript is a page-description language. It only deals reasonably with certain types of images, in certain contexts, and it doesn't attempt to address a general image storage/transmission problem. In fact, because it is programmable, it is capable of dealing with various standards which might be developed for various classes of images. 2. Nobody gave Apple or Adobe a monopoly on what they did. (In fact, at this point I don't see what Apple has to do with it, now that there are so many PostScript printers other than the LaserWriters.) Adobe's control exists because they're doing the work and nobody else is! > You are now telling us that even after this flawed standard has been accepted by > people who know very little about programming languages and the theory of > information, nobody should be allowed to discuss PostScript's deficiencies... If you had been willing to read what I wrote, you would have seen that I explicitly mentioned that "sensible criticism would be useful." I honestly mean that. There are problems with PostScript. I'm sure that even Glenn and the other Adobe folks will tell you PostScript has problems! (They can probably identify the real ones better than the rest of us, too.) It's possible to discuss the problems without attacking anyone. It should even be possible, if we're going to have useful discussions, to look at some- thing which seems like a problem to some people and come to realize that it's "designer's choice." But to do the latter, we have to realize that there's a difference between "that's wrong" and "that's not the way I'd have done it." >...Your > comments do not reek of America. They reek of Russia before Gorbachev. Is this your technical contribution? I was complaining that much recent criticism has not been useful, constructive, or technical, and you come back with something like this. You have proven my point better than I could have done. Either give some reason for your libelous statement or retract it. > Years ago IMAGEN developed a language called DDL (Document Description Language). > Our DDL interpreter supports both a readable and binary format. DDL allows you > to do everything that can be done in PostScript, and more... Then a productive discussion would be to explore why DDL failed and/or why PostScript succeeded. We could learn from that, I hope! The reasons might very well turn out to be non-technical--but that is often the case for acceptance of a programming language. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools.