Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ico.isc.com!rcd
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.laser-printers
Subject: Re: ditroff metrics
Summary: ditroff is much cleaner
Message-ID: <8910201447.AA11179@crayola.cs.UMD.EDU>
Date: 16 Oct 89 19:47:57 GMT
References: <8910100244.AA08879@crayola.cs.UMD.EDU> <8910131629.AA17002@crayola.cs.UMD.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp, Boulder, CO
Lines: 15
Approved: laser-lovers@brillig.umd.edu


mackay@MANTA.CS.WASHINGTON.EDU (Pierre MacKay) writes:
> If you are using Transcript, I am a bit puzzled to learn why you use ditroff
> instead of ptroff.  

There are good reasons for using ditroff (and psroff) rather than old troff
and ptroff (the C/A/T interface).

Ditroff works with grap.  It works better than old troff with pic.  Font
support for multiple families actually works well.  You can have more fonts
"mounted" (available) at one time.  Point size selection is better.
Ditroff is also a lot cleaner internally, for whatever that's worth.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
   ...No DOS.  UNIX.