Re: problems revealed by new demos

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
>  
>
>>No doubt there.  What about this "pstricks".  Way back, I saw that one
>>and thought to update the image drivers in there.  Then looking at it,
>>it seemed so outdated that I wondered about its worth.  I tried running
>>'all.dem' under pstricks; that soon failed.  I tried 'image.dem'; image
>>don't pass through of course but some other elements in the plots
>>failed.  pstricks is falling behind a bit.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, that's what happens if none of its users bothers to speak up or
>participate in the maintenance.  I'm quite sure we have drivers that have
>accumulated even more dust than pstricks.
>

I'm not a user of pstricks, so I'm not advocating its update.  In fact, 
I'd be willing to let that one go.  The reason is that I think the 
e/pslatex approach is much superior.  There's the nice graphics features 
of PostScript combined with the font and math scripts of LaTeX.

Now, I looked at pstricks.sty on the web and see that there is a 2004 
copyright suggesting it has been updated recently.  Yet, it still looks 
rather skimpy.

Perhaps what could be done is a ./configure switch to leave pstricks out 
of the terminal list by default.  It's capabilities probably match 
pre-4.0 and its use may be limited (could ask the LaTeX developers).

It's just as well to leave it as is and if someone complains about lack 
of features see if something can be done.


>> From my understanding, EPS supposedly only differs from PS by the 
>>presence of the bounding box information.
>>    
>>
>
>I was talking about epslatex vs. pslatex.  Those two are almost completely
>independent of each other.
>  
>

Yes, I found that out.  They should be made very similar.

Dan