On 21.12.04, Simson L. Garfinkel wrote:
> >From: Francisco Borges <borges@...>
> >To: Pyx-User <pyx-user@...>
> >Subject: Re: [PyX-user] remarks on usability
> >Organization: Alfa Informatica - Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
> >Hello all,
> >sorry for the delayed answer (I've been away).
> >=BB On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 09:05AM +0100, Andre Wobst wrote:
> >>the same problem as well. My solution is to just keep old versions
> >>around to be able to recreate old figures instead of always porting
> >I keep the eps of everything I need and in principle I did rather port
> >it to the current version, but I guess for small changes that might be
> It's a pretty weird principle you have that keeps everything in a
> Turing-complete programming language that can have unbounded
> utilization of resources, security problems, and that can generate
> inconsistent results when rendered with GhostScript, Adobe's
> PostScript, or the other PS interperters.
> I've met a lot of TeX/LaTeX hackers who have a devotion to EPS because
> it's what LaTeX uses. THey don't seem to realize that LaTeX doesn't
> really parse EPS, but just shoots it through to the dvi2ps converter,
> where it gets dribbled into the output file.
> EPS is evil. I wish that PyX would produce PDF files directly.
Hey, don't be too harsh with PostScript. Compared to PDF it has
at least the advantage of being sometimes readable - of course only
as far as the program with which it was created doesn't produce
a heavily "compressed" code.
Anyway, PDF support is on the way and in fact you can try it right now
by using the writePDFfile method instead of writeEPSfile. But be aware
that not every PyX feature is supported at the moment.