Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!vu-vlsi!guest From: guest@vu-vlsi.UUCP (visitors) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: ctex documentation Message-ID: <1109@vu-vlsi.UUCP> Date: Sat, 5-Sep-87 03:27:02 EDT Article-I.D.: vu-vlsi.1109 Posted: Sat Sep 5 03:27:02 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Sep-87 02:43:48 EDT References: <1742@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM> <540@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> <4313@ncoast.UUCP> Reply-To: 164485913@excalibur.UUCP (Mark Schaffer) Organization: Villanova Univ. EE Dept. Lines: 31 In article <4313@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: >As quoted from <540@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> by rokicki@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Tomas Rokicki): >+--------------- >| $ I recently got ctex running on my 6300pc by hacking the file tex.h. >| >| Please, folks, Pat Monardo's Common TeX is Common TeX; my version of >| TeX in C is CTeX. >+--------------- > >What other variants are there, what languages, are they shareware or PD >or commercial or etc., how much do they cost, what kinds of systems are >supported, and all that good stuff. TeX (in pascal) is pretty worthless >when all you have is a C compiler... While it is true that TeX written in pascal is very difficult to work on if you only have a C compiler, isn't the reason TeX was originally written in pascal was because everyone and their Aunt Sophie knows enough pascal and probably has access (somehow) to a pascal compiler. I think that if this is indeed the case, why do people make it difficult for themselves, and some others, by rewriting it in C? --just a thought. ============================================================================== | Mark Schaffer | BITNET: 164485913@vuvaxcom | | Villanova University | UUCP: ...{ihnp4!psuvax1,burdvax,cbmvax,pyrnj,bpa} | | (Go Wildcats!) | !vu-vlsi!excalibur!164485913 | ============================================================================== please respond/reply to the above addresses and not to guest@vu-vlsi.UUCP