DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008 Posts: 2828 Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
All that is good news.
The only what left is to get full control of %pl source, fix its design ugliness and minor bugs and make few preset classical looks from Nature, Science and Phys.Review. If these will be as good as in Matlab (and there is nothing which prevents that) users will look further to improve and customize the plots using the whole package.
My major point with %pl is that it must be not this ugly POS like it is but exactly opposite -- that its result must be straight ready for any professional publication and satisfy 99% of users as is without any further touches.
Pity that authors in their time did not involve just one single professor from Art department which would give his students homework to select the best scientific graphics designs for %pl and the whole package. I just returned from the conference where organizers did exactly that with the conference banners and designs. The students made 50 incredible designs one better then another, competing with each others and further improving, all costed organizers nothing
When I first time seen Simpleplot demo in 90th I couldn't believe how ugly and obsolete it all looked with its 4 bit colors, primitive designs, shizophrenic fonts and low resolutions and how similarly crazily ($1500 or something ?) it costed. The authors were clearly out of their minds let alone even to work in university. |
|