Re: PostScript and IDL,

[davidf(at)dfanning.com (David Fanning)]

Hi Folks,

It seems this discussion has pricked a number of sympathetic
ears at RSI. But the developers who have to make the
decisions need help from us as to what we really want.
Here is how one developer framed the problem for me:

   The big issue for us is what tradeoffs are users willing 
   to make in order to get scalable PostScript output.  They 
   will have to give up speed/memory/filesize or WYSIWYG to 
   get the type of PS they are looking for. 
	
   What sort of rendering would you be willing to give up to get
   scalable/embedded EPS?  Would you will willing to give up 
   smooth shading and lights?  How about zbuffering and/or 
   textures?  Would you consider a mixed mode rendering where 
   individual views are rendered as bitmaps or raw PS depending 
   on their contents?  How about if a scene were rendered as all
   bitmap or all PS depending on the objects in the scene?  How 
   about a device which rendered only what is possible with 
   PS (i.e. some objects would disappear completely)?

   These are the real issues we are struggling with right now...
   Any input you have would be helpful.

Immediately after a new release is when the big discussions
about what to do next go on. There is a lot of horse trading
between marketing and the developers over what is needed and
what is possible in the given time frame. This is absolutely
the time when users can have the most influence over what happens
next. If you have ideas about this or anything else you like/dislike
about IDL, this would be a good time to get those fingers
working. I should think anyone at support@rsinc.com would
be happy to pass your comments along to the appropriate 
people.

Cheers,

David

-----------------------------------------------------------
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting
E-Mail: davidf@dfanning.com
Phone: 970-221-0438
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/