From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <6e35c0620610031348j7bb69409qc12082341f9d23e2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:48:19 -0700 From: "Jack Johnson" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] gs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <8fd802a4a0bcc60a27f43346bbccf0c5@plan9.bell-labs.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c4a9a152-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 10/3/06, Charles Forsyth wrote: > out of idle interest, why has there never been a replacement? > is it really that hard? That's a great question. I Googled for some leads: "Saffron includes an all-Java PostScript(r) interpreter" http://www.dynalivery.com/customersupport/Saffron_FAQs/SaffronInfo.html "The RoPS interpreter is a Microsoft Windows implementation of the PostScript programming language interpreter" http://www.rops.org/ There is some interesting detail stuff here that I'd want to re-read if I were going to write an interpreter from scratch: http://www.anastigmatix.net/postscript/direct.html This might also make for a good jumping-off point: http://serl.cs.colorado.edu/~arcadia/Software/tps.html ...but from the looks of it, maybe it would be easier to "fix" ghostscript by making it faster/slimmer/etc. I wonder if it runs better on some architectures than others? If so, sounds like a good job for a cpu server. -Jack