Path: utzoo!mnetor!motto!ecijmm!eci386!woods
From: woods@eci386.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: a word-processor for UNIX
Summary: troff macros are a language?
Message-ID: <1989Jul21.203719.3716@eci386.uucp>
Date: 21 Jul 89 20:37:19 GMT
References: <20306@adm.BRL.MIL> <26558@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Reply-To: woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates: Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 27

Hmm, I wonder if this should be followed up in comp.text now?

In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes:
> Concerning the use of formatting languages vs. publishing systems:

Hold on a moment.  Are you a programmer?  I am.  I find little
more in the form of language in troff macros, than I do in the
use of key strokes or mouse moves of your average "WP".  Use of a
macro package like MM reduces even further the use of language
constructs while formatting a document.

Don't get me wrong.  I'll still call troff and TeX formatting
languages too, but I find their grammar so utterly simple, I
cannot imagine why anyone cannot learn them.

> [....]  Even within language-based systems, note
> the popularity LaTeX enjoys over TeX.

That is, from what I understand, the same as comparing the MM
macro package to raw troff.  Of course MM is more popular.  It is,
IMHO, several orders of magnitude easier to ue.
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft,gpu.utcs.UToronto.CA,utorgpu.BITNET}
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]		Toronto, Ontario CANADA