🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2120@ux.acs.umn.edu> clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes:
>In article <438@three.mv.com> cory@three.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:
>>MACHINE CODE????  This sounds like a solution that will only work with
>>Apple's Laserwriter (or other 68k based systems).  What about all of
>>the non-Apple postscript devices?  What about the non-68k based postscript
>>engines?
>
>I would presume that these non-68K-based PostScript engines have machine
>code of their own, which would be generated by the drivers which would
>be written for these printers.

The whole point of PostScript is that there should be only one print driver
for all PostScript devices, regardless of manufacture or implementation.
Including machine code defeats this.

>This seems like it would be faster than sending PostScript to be interpreted
>by the printer.  In some fictional printer controlled by an 80486, instead of
>a PostScript program being interpreted by a PostScript interpreter running on
>the 80486, you'd have curve equations being rendered by 80486 machine code.

Doubtless it would be faster, but just who is going to write the different
88k, R3000, 'x86, and T800 transputer implementations?  Is someone going to
give me the source, so I can include it in my software postscript interpreter?

>Seems like a good idea to me, but then I'm not a gnarly printing dude, either.

In my opinion, the downloaded machine code should only be used if the 
manufacturer needs to fix a bug in their PostScript implementation and
doesn't want to do a general rom upgrade yet.

	--jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin	UniFax Communications, Inc.

		CADnet Inc, San Ramon California
		jtc@motcad.portal.com, ...!portal!motcad!jtc