Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Why troff?
Message-ID: <7592@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Jan-87 21:03:19 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7592
Posted: Fri Jan 30 21:03:19 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Jan-87 21:03:19 EST
References: <362@linus.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 20
Keywords: TeX, troff

> My question is this - why does anyone continue to use troff? ...

Backward compatibility is a big part of it.  Changing a whole bunch of naive
users over to a new troff macro set is a large-scale nightmare in itself.
Changing the very syntax of the formatting language would be worse.

Another consideration is that troff will fit in a 16-bit machine, and TeX
hasn't a prayer of doing so.  (Yes, there are some subsets that will, but
not the whole thing.)  This issue is diminishing in importance, but it's
not trivial.

> besides there are lots of really simple WYSIWYG formatters around today,
> so convenience seems unlikely as well. ...

"Simple" is the word for most of them.  As in "simple-minded".  They also
have some problems with serious mismatches between the what-you-see device
(e.g. 24x80 terminal) and the what-you-get device (e.g. laser printer).
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry