It doesn't help that the people behind processing.org take the view that old versions are just for people who can build them from source rather than keeping an archive, so I've no idea if this is down to something that's changed in the numerous versions since the original was written or something else. For a language used for visual design, it really should have a more responsible attitude to art history and conservation...
Update, a few minutes later: Ah ha, it's a bear problem*. The train of thought was a quick look through the C clone source and noticing how it handles the colour depth of the display (moaning a lot about the need to do so). 'I wonder how Processing does it?' I still don't know - although the use of the constant 255 to get a white suggests a certain 8-bitness somewhere - but what's that third argument to the initial instruction to create a graphics screen to display to? Ah, it tells Processing how to render the output... why's it "Fast 3D renderer for the web. Sacrifices rendering quality for quick 3D drawing"? I've absolutely no idea, especially as it's 2D graphics, but using the default renderer produces the results I want and expect.
* I was reminded recently (via a link in one of Paul's tweets, I think) of the university that doesn't let students bother anyone important with their programming problems until the student has explained the problem to the teddy bear in the corridor first. The idea is that explaining the problem to someone else often leads to the student working out what's going wrong themselves (or at least thinking of another approach to try).
Thank you, dear teddy bears :)
This entry was originally posted at http://lovingboth.dreamwidth.org/452364.html, because despite having a permanent account, I have had enough of LJ's current owners trying to be evil. Please comment there using OpenID - have and if you have an LJ account, you can use it for your OpenID account. Or just join Dreamwidth! It only took a couple of minutes to copy all my entries here to there.