Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[David Megginson] > Robin Berjon writes: > > > Yes, I know that but I was thinking more of graphical capacities > > and the such. SVG does not endeavour to be a complete programming > > language, something which I often hear perceived as an advantage > > (eg it won't send your printer into an infinite loop). > > Because Postscript is a procedural language, there's inevitably going > to be something you can do with it that you cannot do as efficiently > (or at all) with a declarative language. Whatever that something is, > I doubt it's worth the complexity tradeoff, but all the same, don't be > surprised when someone pulls it out. > > Postscript is somewhat like a more complex and sophisticated FORTH. It really is very good. As I FORTH user for years, I though that Adobe made a very good choice in picking a stack- and definition-based language. But a Postscript program can be virtually unreadable. I would rather work with svg, but (or better, even though) without a language binding, so far some things are harder or (perhaps) impossible with svg that you can do with PS. I suppose that you could get the equivalent of subroutines by named templates in a stylesheet, if you use one to create the svg. If you do it by hand, you are probably out of luck. Cheers, Tom P
|
