4 ms·
Absolutely. Years ago writing programs for *BSD/Linux, PS was the natural, most direct way to implement printing to printers equipped with a PS interpreter. Fo
by jrapdx3 1y ago
Absolutely. Years ago writing programs for *BSD/Linux, PS was the natural, most direct way to implement printing to printers equipped with a PS interpreter.
Fortunately the PS language was very well documented. That made writing PS pretty straightforward, at least for the reasons I was using it. Curiously other concatenative languages have been harder for me to grasp. Maybe that's because I regarded PS as a specific-use tool vs. a general purpose language.
If nothing else PS showed the value of excellent documentation. Lack of it probably accounts for many software project failures, particularly in the open-source world.
- zzo38computer 1y agoYou can also run PostScript programs on the computer; you do not need a PostScript printer. > Maybe that's because I regarded PS as a specific-use tool vs. a general purpose language. In my opinion, it is both. Many of the programs I write in PostScript do not involve a printer at all. > If nothing else PS showed the value of excellent documentation. Lack of it probably accounts for many software project failures, particularly in the open-source world. I also find a problem with many programs that do not have good documentation. When I write my own, I try to provide documentation.