Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!cairo!tut
From: tut%cairo@Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: ditroff that produces PostScript
Message-ID: <53716@sun.uucp>
Date: 18 May 88 19:21:16 GMT
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 28

FLAME ON

I'm getting really sick of all these people writing to explain that
ditroff shouldn't produce PostScript because "di" stands for device
independent, and PostScript isn't device independent, bla bla bla.

There are three big advantages of PostScript over "dit" files:

1.  They are truly device- and resolution-independent.  A PostScript
document can be printed on any PostScript printer.  By contrast, dit
files are device- and resolution-specific.  Let's say you have a 240
dpi Imagen printer: when you acquire a 300 dpi Imagen printer, you'll
have to reformat all your dit files.

2.  PostScript files are nearly legible.  Although jerks such as Bill
Tuthill have claimed that PostScript is a write-only language, ditroff
is even worse.  At least the words in PostScript come out as words,
whereas in dit files each letter is separated by two digits.

3.  PostScript is a standard.  Many quick-and-dirty print shops will
actually typeset PostScript for you.  I can't think of even one print
shop in the entire world that will typeset dit files for you.  Although
the format is ASCII, let's face it, ostriches, it hasn't caught on.

The reason why nobody sells a PostScript-generating ditroff is probably
that nobody thinks ditroff is worth the trouble.

FLAME OFF