Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site osu-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!osu-eddie!elwell
From: elwell@osu-eddie.UUCP (Clayton M. Elwell)
Newsgroups: net.text
Subject: WYSIWYG vs. command-based
Message-ID: <979@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 12:04:27 EST
Article-I.D.: osu-eddi.979
Posted: Wed Dec 11 12:04:27 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 05:48:08 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Ohio State Univ., CIS Dept., Cols, Oh.
Lines: 27

I think I see part of the root of the arguments we've been seeing on this
group lately.  Some people are talking about *current* systems and some are
talking about *ideal* (or theoretical) systems.

Of currently available systems, the command-based systems have the edge.
That is why I use them more often than WYSIWYG systems.  Right now they
have a lower frustration to results ratio.  They also have the advantage
that I can work in a little pleasure reading while my document is formatting
:-).

Given an acceptable WYSIWYG system (acceptable meaning fast and with the
expressive power of TeX, and at least as easy to use), I would drop command
based systems like a hot potato.  Unfortunately, this takes a LOT of computing
power, a very fast high density bitmap display, etc.  This translates into
lots of money.  With the possible exception of Interleaf (which I haven't had
a chance to try yet), such systems do not even exist yet.

Sigh.


-- 
				-- Clayton Elwell
				Elwell@Ohio-State.CSNET
				Elwell%Ohio-State@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
				...!cbosgd!osu-eddie!elwell
-----------------
Remember: There is no gain without amplification...