Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bacchus!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!teklds!zeus!bobr
From: bobr@zeus.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Troff versus TeX: tables
Message-ID: <1221@zeus.TEK.COM>
Date: Mon, 9-Feb-87 15:47:46 EST
Article-I.D.: zeus.1221
Posted: Mon Feb  9 15:47:46 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Feb-87 19:17:55 EST
References: <362@linus.UUCP> <1244@ucbcad.berkeley.edu> <637@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Reply-To: bobr@zeus.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: CAE Systems Division, Tektronix Inc., Beaverton OR
Lines: 18

In article <637@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:

    Troff is probably worse than TeX for tables.  You are comparing
    troff+tbl to raw TeX, an unfair comparison.  

Not unfair.  TeX is a monolith that has everything piled into one system
while the troff-tbl-eqn-. . . approach is in keeping with the small is
better philosophy of UNIX(TM, etc., etc.).  How does the size of TeX compare
with the size of troff+tbl?  Can tbl be used in the exclusion of troff?
What is unfair about this comparison?

    There can be and surely are macro packages for TeX which make tables
    very simple and convenient (I can't name any, I find raw \halign clear
    and simple to use).

Speculation is not a substitute for example.
-- 
Robert Reed, Tektronix CAE Systems Division, bobr@zeus.TEK