Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!apple!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!ked
From: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: a word-processor for UNIX
Message-ID: <26567@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 21 Jul 89 15:50:33 GMT
References: <20306@adm.BRL.MIL> <26558@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17

In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes:

>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.

Perhaps a rough analogy with cameras might be drawn.  More point-and-shoot
cameras will be designed and sold than high end Nikon, Canon, Haselblad
(sp?) machines and more people will process their film at K-Mart than at
custom labs.  Nevertheless, virtually all who work professionally will
stick with the generally harder to use high end equipment.

More could be done to combine approaches - wrappers and friendly shells
for a powerful and fully programmable engine.