Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: news@zzo38computer.org.invalid
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Ideas of a new version of PostScript (called "Computer PostScript")
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2024 15:05:07 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <1709852337.bystand@zzo38computer.org>
References: <1705687027.bystand@zzo38computer.org> <usbjbe$t2sj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6434fe12da3b98933f86d2082a00eb17"; logging-data="1375293"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fcBeHY6vx937wpDuCYUUZ"
User-Agent: bystand/1.3.0pre1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TVJyJlT8rdqUw7hbEFXSklFkn2Y=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.postscript:3991

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> Get rid of the whole graphics API. It doesn't serve any useful purpose any 
> more.

I still use it sometimes, although I also write programs in PostScript that do
not use the graphics, too (PostScript is useful for programs with and without
graphics). I still think it is good, although some improvements could be made,
which I mentioned in my message.

If you do not use the graphics API, how do you think would be improvement, if
you want to use graphics, then?

> NeWS was obsoleted by Display PostScript, and even Display PostScript 
> isn't worth using now.

There are a few good ideas, though, which is why I have mentioned some of them.

-- 
Don't laugh at the moon when it is day time in France.