3 ms·

PostScript is not flexible enough for the web. PostScript is like PDF, it assumes a canvas of fixed dimensions. This is fine if everyone has screens of the sam

by goto11 6y ago

PostScript is not flexible enough for the web. PostScript is like PDF, it assumes a canvas of fixed dimensions. This is fine if everyone has screens of the same dimensions or only prints to read on paper (and nobody have bad eyesight). But on the web there is a wide variety of viewport dimensions, so a PDF-like layout would either make text to small or require incessant scrolling back and forth and up and down. CSS is more complex than PostScript because it tackles a much harder problem. OK, since PS has an embedded programming language I guess you could program the layout to adapt to different viewport dimensions. This would force you to embed the complexity of CSS/browser layout engine in each page.

DonHopkins 6y ago
>PostScript is like PDF, it assumes a canvas of fixed dimensions. Actually, the most important way PostScript is unlike PDF is that it's a Turing complete programming language, which is useful for implementing responsive layout. >CSS is more complex than PostScript because it tackles a much harder problem. No, CSS is more complex than PostScript because it was designed by a bickering committee and competing companies over a long period of time, and nailed onto the side on HTML as an afterthought of a shotgun wedding. >This would force you to embed the complexity of CSS/browser layout engine in each page. Or implement a shared library or user interface toolkit or browser platform or scriptable Hypercard-like environment that makes it easy to implement responsive layout. See my comments above about The NeWS Toolkit, HyperTIES, HyperLook, PizzaTool, etc.
- goto11 6y ago
  > No, CSS is more complex than PostScript because it was designed by a bickering committee and competing companies over a long period of time, and nailed onto the side on HTML as an afterthought of a shotgun wedding. That is not really an argument, that is just en emotional outpouring. I haven't seen anyone propose a simpler solution which solves the same real-world problems. But you can easily create a simpler solution if you ignore the problems of different device dimensions, accessibility etc. Anyway, CSS itself is not the issue. Even before CSS, the browsers used a layout model which was adaptive to different viewport dimensions and text scalings. This layout model is formalized in CSS as "normal flow", but the model itself predates the CSS spec. CSS now allows you to override these defaults in various ways so you can create a layout with fixed dimensions. But by default it is adaptive. In PostScript you need to explicitly write code to make the layout adaptive. If you want it to be as adaptive as HTML is by default, you will end up implementing something of similar complexity to a HTML rendering engine in each page (never mind issues with search engine indexing, accessibility and so on) - or you will bundle an adaptive rending library, in which case we are back to square one - a browser rending engine. HTML + CSS may be "bad" and "ugly" but have the great advantage that it actually works in the real world. Ugly things that work is always going to beat elegant things that doesn't work.
anthk 6y ago
PostScript IT'S a programming language, man. Just look up the example on this page on the Z-Machine v3 interpreter written from a great hacker and Gopher user I admire.

by goto11 6y ago

DonHopkins 6y ago

>PostScript is like PDF, it assumes a canvas of fixed dimensions. Actually, the most important way PostScript is unlike PDF is that it's a Turing complete programming language, which is useful for implementing responsive layout. >CSS is more complex than PostScript because it tackles a much harder problem. No, CSS is more complex than PostScript because it was designed by a bickering committee and competing companies over a long period of time, and nailed onto the side on HTML as an afterthought of a shotgun wedding. >This would force you to embed the complexity of CSS/browser layout engine in each page. Or implement a shared library or user interface toolkit or browser platform or scriptable Hypercard-like environment that makes it easy to implement responsive layout. See my comments above about The NeWS Toolkit, HyperTIES, HyperLook, PizzaTool, etc.

goto11 6y ago
> No, CSS is more complex than PostScript because it was designed by a bickering committee and competing companies over a long period of time, and nailed onto the side on HTML as an afterthought of a shotgun wedding. That is not really an argument, that is just en emotional outpouring. I haven't seen anyone propose a simpler solution which solves the same real-world problems. But you can easily create a simpler solution if you ignore the problems of different device dimensions, accessibility etc. Anyway, CSS itself is not the issue. Even before CSS, the browsers used a layout model which was adaptive to different viewport dimensions and text scalings. This layout model is formalized in CSS as "normal flow", but the model itself predates the CSS spec. CSS now allows you to override these defaults in various ways so you can create a layout with fixed dimensions. But by default it is adaptive. In PostScript you need to explicitly write code to make the layout adaptive. If you want it to be as adaptive as HTML is by default, you will end up implementing something of similar complexity to a HTML rendering engine in each page (never mind issues with search engine indexing, accessibility and so on) - or you will bundle an adaptive rending library, in which case we are back to square one - a browser rending engine. HTML + CSS may be "bad" and "ugly" but have the great advantage that it actually works in the real world. Ugly things that work is always going to beat elegant things that doesn't work.

anthk 6y ago

PostScript IT'S a programming language, man. Just look up the example on this page on the Z-Machine v3 interpreter written from a great hacker and Gopher user I admire.