Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site mako.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!mako!jans
From: jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman)
Newsgroups: net.text
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG
Message-ID: <990@mako.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Dec-85 13:28:46 EST
Article-I.D.: mako.990
Posted: Wed Dec 25 13:28:46 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 00:20:55 EST
References: <2592@glacier.ARPA> <11287@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 19
Summary: 

Although I haven't read each and every posting on this discussion, one of the
things Brian (et. al., anti-WYSIWYG) seems to miss is that the two styles could
peacefully co-exist.

Take, for instance, Richard Stallman's GNU emacs.  It is best known as a
WYSIWYG text editor, however, it also has a text-manipulation language and can
actually be run "batch", that is, feed it a text file and a command file and
let it work.  To really see this in action, watch the build procedure, when
emacs actually compiles portions of itself into itself.

There are valid arguments for each style of text layout programs, so why argue
which is best?  Why not work at rolling them together?  I think the ultimate
would be a Mac-like WYSIWYG human interface, except what you do is recorded in
a text-manipulation language and can be "cut" and "pasted", only with
parameters, global settings, etc.
-- 
:::::: Artificial   Intelligence   Machines   ---   Smalltalk   Project ::::::
:::::: Jan Steinman		Box 1000, MS 60-405	(w)503/685-2956 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans	Wilsonville, OR 97070	(h)503/657-7703 ::::::