Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!news
From: gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: The programming CULT
Message-ID: <1990Aug2.210819.11878@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 2 Aug 90 21:00:01 GMT
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business
Lines: 61

-------- 

Not really sure this belongs in .programmer anymore, but here goes...

In article <188@sierra.STANFORD.EDU>, siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes...
>This is a side issue from the point you were arguing, but TeX, on a
>Mac or PC, with a good previewer, IMHO really CAN be easier than Word
>& Expressionist, or similar WYSIWYG systems.
[...]
>In other words, it's pretty darn close to WYSIWYG.  But the point I'd
>really like to make is that as soon as the situation gets at all
>complicated, so-called WYSIWYG really isn't WYSIWYG any more, and the
>attempt at having WYSIWYG makes things worse, not better.
> 
[...]
> 
>In a TeX source file if I see a line that says
> 
>   \subhed2{Section 3.1: Further Properties of WYSIWYG Systems}
> 

How do you know how to write this?  Could I sit right down and figure it out? 
Chances are I couldn't do it on a Mac system either, but maybe, just maybe.  

[...]
>In a WYSIWYG word processor there is of course also (usually) some way
>to get at the style sheet or ruler or whatever it is that will change
>the format of all the level 2 subheads; but this process is generally
>_different_ in every word processor; it's generally NOT immediately
>visible or obvious; it's often arcane or complicated; and it's often
>dangerous (it's hard to be sure that you've actually changed ALL the
>subheadings you wanted to change, and hard to be sure you haven't
>accidentally changed some other things you didn't want to change).


These seem like very generalized claims.  If indeed that's true, then it's the
fault of the app, not of WYSIWYG as a whole.  Indeed, I would claim that it
should be easier to accomplish with a graphical interface, such as would be
found in a WYSIWYG program, than with a pure-text program.  Sure, once you know
the TeX programming language, it may be easier to change a line than to go thru
a dialog, but these presupposes that you know the language.  Are all
typesetting languages the same?  Do they have to be?  Do you think it is more
likely that a naive user would be able to go from FullWrite, say, to Nisus as a
TeX user would be able to go to ZapWRITE (new, not real, typesetting language,
but which, for purposes of this example, has little syntax in common with TeX).

>My claim: At some level of complexity -- and not a very high level --
>WYSIWYG inherently fails; and a procedural or "markup" or coded style
>of formatting like TeX is really easier -- especially when things are
>as beautifully designed as TeX, and Textures, are.

Well, then you should _love_ WordPerfect for the PC.  :->


Robert

============================================================================
= gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to =
=            		         * all my opinions are *  compute"         =
=                                * mine                *  -Kraftwerk       =
============================================================================