[jrapdx3]

Absolutely. Years ago writing programs for *BSD/Linux, PS was the natural, most direct way to implement printing to printers equipped with a PS interpreter.

Fortunately the PS language was very well documented. That made writing PS pretty straightforward, at least for the reasons I was using it. Curiously other concatenative languages have been harder for me to grasp. Maybe that's because I regarded PS as a specific-use tool vs. a general purpose language.

If nothing else PS showed the value of excellent documentation. Lack of it probably accounts for many software project failures, particularly in the open-source world.

[zzo38computer]

You can also run PostScript programs on the computer; you do not need a PostScript printer.

> Maybe that's because I regarded PS as a specific-use tool vs. a general purpose language.

In my opinion, it is both. Many of the programs I write in PostScript do not involve a printer at all.

> If nothing else PS showed the value of excellent documentation. Lack of it probably accounts for many software project failures, particularly in the open-source world.

I also find a problem with many programs that do not have good documentation. When I write my own, I try to provide documentation.