Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!osu-eddie!zwicky
From: zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Why troff?
Message-ID: <2986@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Jan-87 10:47:59 EST
Article-I.D.: osu-eddi.2986
Posted: Mon Jan 26 10:47:59 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Jan-87 03:06:04 EST
References: <362@linus.UUCP> <106@tg.UUCP>
Reply-To: zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky)
Distribution: comp.text
Organization: The Ohio State University, CIS Dept.
Lines: 24
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).  We have looked into
>the possibility of using TeX, but have resisted up until now because the
>Computer Modern fonts of TeX does not compare with the Times Roman
>availble on the VideoComp.  We cannot download fonts to this typesetter
>nor is it fiscally feesable to have Information International Inc. (the
>makers of the VideoComp) digitize these fonts for us.  For APS, this is
>a big factor!

TeX can use any font for which it has font metrics; I personally generate
LaTeX documents for the internal LaserWriter Plus fonts on a Sun3. I
hate Computer Modern, so I do everything in Bookman. It seems that
most of the problems people have with TeX can be traced to either not
knowing enough about TeX, or not wanting to change. One of our faculty
members didn't want to switch from troff to TeX because "TeX 
wouldn't do macros" We managed to convince hima of the falsehood
of this, but he still believes that TeX commands are harder to
understand than troff, an attitude I find almost as incomprehensible as troff.
TeX isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than many people seem to
think.

	Elizabeth