[David Megginson]
> Robin Berjon writes:
>
> > Yes, I know that but I was thinking more of graphical capacities
> > and the such. SVG does not endeavour to be a complete programming
> > language, something which I often hear perceived as an advantage
> > (eg it won't send your printer into an infinite loop).
>
> Because Postscript is a procedural language, there's inevitably going
> to be something you can do with it that you cannot do as efficiently
> (or at all) with a declarative language. Whatever that something is,
> I doubt it's worth the complexity tradeoff, but all the same, don't be
> surprised when someone pulls it out.
>
>
Postscript is somewhat like a more complex and sophisticated FORTH. It
really is very good. As I FORTH user for years, I though that Adobe made a
very good choice in picking a stack- and definition-based language. But a
Postscript program can be virtually unreadable. I would rather work with
svg, but (or better, even though) without a language binding, so far some
things are harder or (perhaps) impossible with svg that you can do with PS.
I suppose that you could get the equivalent of subroutines by named
templates in a stylesheet, if you use one to create the svg. If you do it
by hand, you are probably out of luck.
Cheers,
Tom P
