alt.ascii-art chat (last 50-60 messages)

VK wrote:
Joris >> If what you want to do is gif animations with text art, why
limit yourself to the very strictly defined "ascii art" (and I mean
the "pure" form)? I mean "ascii art" has these limits for a reason, and
that reason is no longer interesting when it comes to gif animations.



I like do make ascii art with all its limitations and I understand
their reasons to be. But those reason don't apply to Javascript
(if I'm not mistaking) at least not all of them.

Paper and ink have their limits with reason to be too:
turning them into gif (animation or not) isn't logical/natural at all.
People do it all the time and nobody says they shouldn't...

Why not take an ascii bunny and turn it into a animated gif?
Because it doesn't fit into the ascii way of seeing things?
Hmmm letters haven't been designed to make drawings, text
editors haven't been designed to make ascii art etc etc...

Hmmm... I posted this a while back (*hint*hint*):

VKBGER

X___.___.___.___.___.___.
    |
    !       .___.___.___.
    |       |       |
.___!___.___!       !
        |           |
        !       .___!___.


sorry I was writting (it takes me time)

Shimrod wrote:

joris>> het is blijkbaar al gelukt :) Ik zei maar drie keer Veronica
en ze was gelijk nieuwsgierig. Veronica is blijkbaar vrij makkelijk
op stang te jagen. Of niet Veronica? :)

Ja maar stel je voor dat Veronica begint te schrijven
in het Sweeds met "Shimrod" in plaats van Veronica...
Het lijkt mij niet leuk. Toch?

VK wrote:
Joris >> what was he saying about me?????

He was saying that.... naah it's better if you ask him.

anonymous wrote:
Joris >> no, that's right, some of those limitations don't apply to
javascript (I am not an expert at javascript so don't ask me any de-
tailed questions about that), but you can still make the javascript 
"pause" (I have seen such versions) and then copy-and-paste "pure" 
ascii art from the text box. Even in lynx one can still do a "view
page source" and pick out the ascii art.

I'd say it is more logical to turn a "pixel" picture such as one on
paper (ok, very small "pixels") into another pixel image such as gif
than to turn a rough description of an image (which is what an ascii
image really is. It doesn't turn into an "image" until you apply a 
font to it) into a pixel image.






Hi there,

Of course you can do with javascript some things that a gif
animation can't but the opposite is also true.
I assume that you don't draw yourself. If you did you'd probably
have my kind of logic who says that an ascii drawing is
already in the computer and thus nearer the gif than some ink
(or whatever) on paper.

VK wrote>>

Joris >> "don't draw myself"? As in do I do any kind of non-computerised
"art work"? Sure, but as a computer science kind of girl I also know 
what happens inside a computer and there are _miles_ between ascii and
gif. (you make oil paintings on canvas, not paper, right? Why? Because
you have some feeling for why making an oil painting on paper might be


Not true!!!!
A canvas has been prepeared for oil painting, you can the same with
paper. It's even commonly used.
Painting on a non-prepeared canvas: that IS a bad idea even if
it has also been done (modern art you know).
Well I'm an "arti" kind of guy and spending hours/days to make
drawings for an animation, scaning them, retouching them in photoshop,
seems gives me the feeling that I have had better used ascii
art drawings.

woah! I'm getting tired, my English gets worth     :)

Shimrod>>

Yes, but I'm French and my Duch is probably getting worth too   :D