NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/physics/18544

Text File | 1992-11-09 | 1.6 KB | 34 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!Sunburn.Stanford.EDU!pratt
From: [e-mail] (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and Fanciful misc SAGA
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
References: <1992Nov8.154955.15938@prim> <[e-mail]> <1992Nov9.155216.18546@prim>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:01:56 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <1992Nov9.155216.18546@prim> [e-mail] (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>>
>>You are forgetting that scalability is a big concern today in CS.
>>Digital models don't scale gracefully, the bits look bigger.  Smooth
>>scalability demands a smooth view of what one is scaling.  A digital
>>view inhibits scalability.
>>
>
>Can you give an example of where scalability becomes a problem? Of course
>things don't look the same on smaller and smaller scales, but that's the
>whole point. If you take a smooth rod of metal, you can keep chopping it
>in half, but eventually you'll run up against a barrier of individual atoms -
>your scalability disappears.

I already gave a perfect example, namely bitmap fonts.  I used to hear
exactly your view expressed for bitmap fonts during the mid-80's.  I
don't hear it any more, there are now too many bits for bitmaps to be
more than the last step before rendering, at least in printers and I
hope at some point for screens.
--
Vaughan Pratt