On May 30, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 30 May 2010 23:08, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
>> cool post
>>
>
> Yeah, these things are quite interesting. Except that not much people
> actually interested in it :)
I do not think so.
Good posts are read more that you believe. Now in mailing-list the numbers of
mails
cut the knowledge after a point.
> Here's another thing, which can be done right (if we want).
>
> Rome/OpenVG Paths is actually nothing else than a special kind of more
> general thing - shape.
>
> So, at very basis, we should have only two components for painting:
> shape and paint.
> And in fact we need to support only a single operation: fill the shape
> with given paint.
> (The path stroke could be seen as a special kind of fill)
>
>
> So the question is: Really. Why we should constrain ourselves with
> specific things
> from a very starting, by cutting out a most basic (and abstact ideas) behind?
>
> There are infinite number of ways, how one could define a shape.
> While paths is only a small, yet effective representation of shapes.
> In same way there are infinite number of ways how one could define a paint.
>
> Then this looks like a strong basis for building-up a powerful &
> flexible graphics engine :)
I do not know. Do the other frameworks outside smalltalk use something else
than paths?
I think that we should start
- making rome working. We are nearly there
- test it
- refactor it.
- I would like to see the canvas for morphic30 too.
- refactor the system to use that.
stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
