3 ms·

PDF displaced Postscript for two reasons: (i) lower resource usage, and (ii) better handling of fonts. Since then PDF has become more sophisticated, handling m

by chalst 15y ago

PDF displaced Postscript for two reasons: (i) lower resource usage, and (ii) better handling of fonts. Since then PDF has become more sophisticated, handling metadata, tagging, and embedding media. It's been a long time since Postscript has been "the universal language for graphical and printed work". A shame, since Postscript is fun.

Craiggybear 15y ago
"It's been a long time since Postscript has been "the universal language for graphical and printed work"" That's actually not true. There's LOTS of PS files in workflows in commercial printing -- I know because I write software for the print industry. Its true PDF is often replacing the PS file but these are NOT without their own set of problems.
gallerytungsten 15y ago
re: "PDF displaced Postscript." Not exactly. A PDF is generated from PostScript, as noted in the article: "A PDF file is a static representation of the result of executing the PostScript file on a single occasion." A PDF is a more compact version of a PostScript file - we could call it compiled PostScript, to use a term many on this site are familiar with. Just as a compiler has many output options, distilling PostScript can result in many different file sizes and levels of quality. (Check out the Distiller output settings.)
- plt 15y ago
  PDF is typically directly generated these days. There's no need to generate it from PostScript first. The main difference between the two is that PDF is a declarative definition of the page whereas PostScript is a turing complete language. You can write a PostScript ray-tracer which will execute on the printer itself something which would never be possible in PDF. On the flip side, PDF is far more efficient as an electronic document format.
- mattlong 15y ago
  No, PDFs don't have to be generated from PS at all. PDF has it's own well-defined spec. Valid PDF files can be generated in many ways besides from PS files. It's even possible to write a valid PDF file by hand if you're feeling masochistic.

by chalst 15y ago

Craiggybear 15y ago

"It's been a long time since Postscript has been "the universal language for graphical and printed work"" That's actually not true. There's LOTS of PS files in workflows in commercial printing -- I know because I write software for the print industry. Its true PDF is often replacing the PS file but these are NOT without their own set of problems.

gallerytungsten 15y ago

re: "PDF displaced Postscript." Not exactly. A PDF is generated from PostScript, as noted in the article: "A PDF file is a static representation of the result of executing the PostScript file on a single occasion." A PDF is a more compact version of a PostScript file - we could call it compiled PostScript, to use a term many on this site are familiar with. Just as a compiler has many output options, distilling PostScript can result in many different file sizes and levels of quality. (Check out the Distiller output settings.)

plt 15y ago
PDF is typically directly generated these days. There's no need to generate it from PostScript first. The main difference between the two is that PDF is a declarative definition of the page whereas PostScript is a turing complete language. You can write a PostScript ray-tracer which will execute on the printer itself something which would never be possible in PDF. On the flip side, PDF is far more efficient as an electronic document format.
mattlong 15y ago
No, PDFs don't have to be generated from PS at all. PDF has it's own well-defined spec. Valid PDF files can be generated in many ways besides from PS files. It's even possible to write a valid PDF file by hand if you're feeling masochistic.