Xref: utzoo comp.text:7400 comp.editors:1949 comp.os.msdos.apps:448 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:2502 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!aunro!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!kevinc From: kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.editors,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Word Perfect 5.1 question -- running headers/footers Message-ID: <351@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> Date: 10 Oct 90 16:03:49 GMT References: <39830@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <345@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> Organization: Athabasca University Lines: 28 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <345@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) writes: >> Hey Peter, just 'cause WP doesn't do something that any word processor >> in its right mind aught to do is no reason to slam the entire evolution >> of word processing. > >Sure it is. Next time it will be something else. Basically, a procedural >language is more versatile than a strictly table-driven formatter. And >of course it's harder to use. You gets what you pay (in terms of learning >time, in this case) for. No arguments here. I won't begin to say that table-driven formatter's are 'better' than procedural languages but we both agree that the learning curve is much smoother and quicker. The question becomes one of how much formatting is required to get the job done. For the most part, in most cases, table-driven formatters like Manuscript and Word Perfect are enough. My comments in the original were that Lotus Manuscript had quite a number of capabilities that WP did not have. I wasn't trying to compare word proecessors (a la WP, Manuscript etc) with procedural languages for page layout. Kevin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA