World: r3wp
[Postscript] Emitting Postscript from REBOL
older newer | first last |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [82] | One of the main reasons I suggested it is the high likelihood of success as you pointed out. |
Gregg 6-Apr-2006 [83x2] | (as a world master here) First, Pekr, I can see how Graham interpreted some of your comments as negative ("Graham - either give me native rebol post script viewer, or forget it. I will not install ghost script..."), and I don't think he's being arrogant. I understand your point about wanting people to spend effort on things that are valuable to REBOL, but what's valueable to each of us is *completely* different in many cases. I hope you two can stay on good terms, because you're both valuable to the community. |
(as a regular REBOLer) I've thought about doing the PS thing, because I hoped it would help printing support (and OSX uses DisplayPS, right? NeXT did too.). I also thought it would be a cool example, because of REBOL's Forth heritage that is very PS like (though I think someone once said that PS was *not* based on Forth..whatever). It shouldn't be too tough--I even have a couple PS book on my shelf if people need something looked up--but, like Pekr, I doubt the general practical usefulness for the average REBOL app user without a "full stack" of PS tools. That doesn't matter if you want it for yourself though, or we can bundle things into a distro for those who want it. | |
JaimeVargas 6-Apr-2006 [85] | Gregg, OSX moved from PS renderer of NeXT to a PDF one. This was to save money from licensing the PS engine from Adobe. Currently PS is converted to PDF by third party tools. PDF on the other hand is direct. |
Gregg 6-Apr-2006 [86] | Ahh, thanks for the info. |
james_nak 6-Apr-2006 [87] | I thought about this subject yesterday night and yeah, it would be nice to be able to do "anything and everything" in Rebol and PS does offer that. Besides the kind of charts that Graham showed, things like wrapping/flowing text around graphic images would be useful. Of course at some point I would most likely convert it to pdf through Distiller. I totally agree that good clean output is essential. My last programming foray in PS was some 16 years ago. At that time it was the only way to go for me. I suppose that alone shows the staying power of PS. |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [88x2] | Gregg, it's like cgi... unless you've got a web server, cgi is a waste of time for you. If I have a web service that uses a postscript dialect to create a postscript image, and then uses ghostscript to convert to pdf .. well, that is useful to those running web services, but a waste of time for those who don't. |
That's why we call them domain specific languages .. they're not for everyone, right! | |
Gregg 6-Apr-2006 [90] | Yup. |
Henrik 6-Apr-2006 [91] | pekr, reading your comments seem to focus on a PS viewer. This is completely uninteresting to me. I want tools that are native to REBOL to allow me to print graphics directly to a printer with the fewest amount of 3rd party tools. How many shrinkwrapped apps out there need third party tools for something as basic as printing? |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [92] | I've got a colour laser printer on my network which I think supports postscript. I presume to print a postscript file, I just send it to the ip address of the printer? |
Maxim 6-Apr-2006 [93] | hum good question. I'd like to know this as well... anyone? |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [94x4] | I have a jetdirect usb print server at 192.168.1.253 >> port: open/direct tcp://192.168.1.253:9100 >> insert port read %boys-0-36-length-weight.ps >> close port |
and I printed out my postscript file with no problems. | |
jetdirect print servers use 9100 for data, and 80 for the embedded webserver. | |
That was pretty easy ... create the postscript file, and send it directly to the printer, or print server. | |
Henrik 6-Apr-2006 [98] | precisely |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [99x3] | I wonder if we should use an existing dialect and modify it to product ps .. or create one from scratch. |
Should we use pair! or not ? | |
moveto 72x72, or moveto 72 72 postscript is RPN, so that looks like 72 72 moveto | |
Henrik 6-Apr-2006 [102] | what about starting from the DRAW dialect? |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [103] | I guess if the main aim is to take drawings to postscript, then that makes sense. |
Henrik 6-Apr-2006 [104] | the fastest route definitely. a PS -> DRAW thing would be a nice thing to have but DRAW -> PS is the most important right now |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [105x2] | So, for example, if we used to plot dialect to draw a graph, we can then emit postscript and send directly to the printer. |
used the Plot dialect .. | |
Henrik 6-Apr-2006 [107] | yes, I think it should work like the DRAW function, but instead of producing an image it produces a string! value to be used however you want it |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [108x3] | String! is good. |
Or, perhap a block! for further processing? | |
Say you wanted to insert an eps file into your output. | |
Henrik 6-Apr-2006 [111] | not sure about the mechanism yet, but maybe yes |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [112] | An eps file is just a postscript file which is written in a special way ... |
Henrik 6-Apr-2006 [113] | there is no paper information AFAIK |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [114x2] | In the name of science, I repeated the above test and it printed out again. |
I also tried it with a pdf, as the printer supports direct pdf printing, but nothing happened. | |
Henrik 6-Apr-2006 [116] | interesting. tried different pdfs? |
Graham 6-Apr-2006 [117] | Not yet. |
Geomol 7-Apr-2006 [118x4] | DRAW -> PS is one possibility. Should we on a longer term also have a dialect or set of functions, than can produce PS? |
that | |
DRAW is also a function used like: img: make image! 100x100 DRAW img <some draw commands> With PostScript, I'm thinking something like: ps-output: "" POSTSCRIPT ps-output <some PS commands> ps-output could then also be a file! or port! and send the output directly to the destination. | |
<some PS commands> in the above is a block of commands with arguments. | |
Graham 7-Apr-2006 [122] | Is the aim to take a draw block and process it so that postscript is produced. |
Geomol 7-Apr-2006 [123x2] | That's what I understood from Henrik's posts. |
It's one way of doing it, and maybe not so bad. I don't know enough about PS to see, if DRAW is too limited. Maybe PS has a lot other stuff, you wanna do, that is difficult to do in DRAW. | |
Graham 7-Apr-2006 [125x2] | as far as I recall, it has quite a limited command set. |
of course, you can define new functions within ps. | |
Geomol 7-Apr-2006 [127x2] | The DRAW approach is, that if you can produce your output in a DRAW block, then you can also print it using PS. My approach is to make a PS dialect, and keep DRAW out of is. With my approach, you can print from REBOL/Core too. I guess, we can have both approaches without problem. |
And both will be usefull for different situations. | |
Graham 7-Apr-2006 [129] | but using a draw dialect is possible in core .. u just can't render it. |
Geomol 7-Apr-2006 [130] | Oh, you're right. :-) |
Graham 7-Apr-2006 [131] | but let's start with a postscript dialect and then see if we can retrofit draw to it. |
older newer | first last |