Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!lacey
From: lacey@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: a word-processor for UNIX
Message-ID: <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: 21 Jul 89 05:22:38 GMT
References: <20306@adm.BRL.MIL> <26558@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY
Lines: 49

In article <26558@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:
> **IX has various TEXT
> processors ranging from fmt to ditroff. It does not, however, come with
> any program that fits the expectations called up by the term "word
> processor" in the MSDOS world. Nevertheless, even the crudest of the
> original **IX tools have capabilities not found in the sexiest MSDOS
> word processing or desk-top publishing tools.

Well, of course, if all we are counting is what comes with the system,
[A-Z]+IX has MS-DOS beat cold.  Are there really any true blue EDLIN 
users out there?  Sure, I'm not a great fan of vi (can you say emacs?),
but, let's get serious, EDLIN?

If we drop that obvious dead-end, our beloved operating system boasts
of many fine "Word Processors".  Take SCO Lyric, or Word Marc Composer,
or even the ubiquitous WordPerfect, as fine examples.

Concerning the use of formatting languages vs. publishing systems:

>While it may take an adept a couple of days, even a week or so, to
>write a macro for nroff/troff that can handle this situation, it CAN BE
>DONE, and in double columns, triple columns, etc. And, once you've got
>the macro written, four key strokes (.XX\n) will give you something
>that you can't get with a $000 or $0000 software package, no matter how
>hard you try.

Granted, but this is exactly the ease-of-use vs. flexibility issue.  A
programming language is many times more flexible, but it requires time
and skill to exploit that flexibility.  Standard publishing systems
(including high end word processors) are much easier to use (at first),
but suffer, as you say, from a rigidity designed into the system by 
the developer.  Who wins?  In terms of popularity in the marketplace,
the ease of use wins big.  Even within language-based systems, note
the popularity LaTeX enjoys over TeX.

Many people will call this a matter of taste.  Whatever works for 
each person is what they should use.  Of course, but that choice
shouldn't be made in ignorance.   For myself, I would call the 
choice not one between WYSIWYG and formatting languages, but between
visual and logical design.  The former does have major disadvantages, as
pin-pointed by the phrase WYSIAYG (What You See Is All You Get).

>Earl H. Kinmonth
>History Department
>University of California, Davis

-- 
John Lacey                      |     cornell!batcomputer!lacey
lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu    |     lacey@crnlthry.bitnet