Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!decwrl!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!tut!hydra!hylka!mnykanen
From: mnykanen@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: The programming CULT
Message-ID: <2856.26bd2bf0@cc.helsinki.fi>
Date: 6 Aug 90 08:35:59 GMT
References: <312@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <2840.26b7eb6e@cc.helsinki.fi> <188@sierra.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 48

In article <188@sierra.STANFORD.EDU>, siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes:
> In article <2840.26b7eb6e@cc.helsinki.fi> mnykanen@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
> 
>>................. Just yesterday a teacher in my dept. rejected
>>my suggestion that Word & Expressionist might be easier than TeX with
> 
> 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.
> 
> Just for the record, with the current version of Textures on the Mac
> you edit your source file using the Mac-like text editor built into
> Textures, then hit CTRL-T to start typesetting.  _Within a few
> seconds_ the first typeset page appears in the preview window on the
> screen.
.. 
> 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}
> 
> I can SEE immediately, not only that this is a level 2 subhead, and
> what its contents are, but also what macro definition ("\subhed2"} I
> have to jump to (with my text editor) to modify ALL the subheads at
> that level.
.. 
> 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.

The point I was trying to make is that MOST OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO
USE A COMPUTER, THEY ONLY WANT NEAT PAGES! CTRL-T, "source files",
macros and procedures are "inhuman" concepts for them, unnecessary side
steps from the main goal. Are we "professionals" force-feeding our
perverse world view to users who consider US experts on what THEY want
to get done with the computer? I thought Mac was revolutionary; seems we can
force it to be just another computer..
-- 
Matti Nyk{nen
CS Student at Helsinki U, Finland
email: mnykanen@cc.helsinki.FI

The best opinions available; get them while they're hot!