Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!seismo!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Why troff?:  TeX vs the VideoComp
Message-ID: <5201@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Jan-87 21:47:46 EST
Article-I.D.: mimsy.5201
Posted: Sun Jan 25 21:47:46 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Jan-87 02:32:22 EST
References: <362@linus.UUCP> <106@tg.UUCP>
Distribution: comp.text
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 16
Keywords: TeX, troff

In article <106@tg.UUCP> scott@tg.UUCP (Scott Barman) writes:
>THE biggest disadvantage of TeX vs. ditroff I can see is the requirement
>of TeX to use its own generated fonts (metafont).

TeX is able (not terribly willing, but able) to use typesetter-resident
fonts.  Unfortunately, it does take a Metafont wizard to construct
a TFM file comprising the various tables: widths, kerning, ligatures,
and extensible character `recipes' (for large math brackets &c).
But just as companies supply width tables for old troff, they are
now beginning to supply TeX font metric files and TeX drivers.  (I
have mixed feelings towards this.  It does make installation much
easier, but it also creates incompatibilities that somehow feel
unnecessary.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
UUCP:	seismo!mimsy!chris	ARPA/CSNet:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu