[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Deprecating FLTK toolkit
From: |
Ben Abbott |
Subject: |
Re: Deprecating FLTK toolkit |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:41:33 -0500 |
> On Nov 8, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Pantxo <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Daniel Sebald wrote
>>> Using that same argument, we should also get
>>> rid of the gnuplot interface.
>>
>> The overriding reason for gnuplot toolkit is *quality* graphics output.
>
> How can you speak about *quality* when the output does not even have the
> same aspect ratio as the the expected figure?
Gnuplot does have some attractive features. Especially if some specific tweaks
are needed. Ex: the plot stream can be captured and then modified manually/
> Daniel Sebald wrote
>> There was a big push years ago to go the route of generating pixel-based
>> EPS files via Mesa (not utilizing the vector quality of EPS, but instead
>> doing a pixel translation of the plot and save in an EPS file as a
>> picture).
>
> This is *bullshit*, please check your assertions and provide links!
Actually, there was a push, but I don’t think anything was implemented.
> Daniel Sebald wrote
>> There are indications this isn't sufficient quality, e.g.,
>> this recent discussion:
>>
>> http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Converting-from-SVG-for-some-printed-output-td4685399.html
>
> This discussion has nothing to do with raster versus vector graphics.
>
> Sorry but can provide a few *actual* examples of *useful* (not 10Mb 3D
> graphics that anyone would print to raster formats) graphics that are
> really better looking when printed with gnuplot ?
Personally, I think vector is preferred (except for photos and such).
Ben