Re: Deprecating FLTK toolkit

[Pantxo]

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?


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!


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 ?

Pantxo



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html