From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <3C1A278D.6F117C50@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112131313110.19799-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>, <15385.42998.56458.344335@nanonic.hilbert.space>
Subject: Re: [9fans] pascal, TeX
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:04:29 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 373f4472-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

paurea@dei.inf.uc3m.es wrote:
> I am wondering... you who criticize *TeX actually write real math
> books (lots of formulas, commutative diagrams, integrals with strange
> stuff...)  with troff and eqn?... I have found that there is where
> they beat any of the other things I have tried (never tried troff though).

I've used both.  Generally, TeX produces somewhat nicer-looking
output, but I find eqn|tbl|troff easier to use.  The DWB (troff)
suite is certainly more "toolkit oriented" and has a variety of
nice "small language" preprocessors for specialized tasks such
as drawing graphs, plotting, chemical symbols, etc.  Either
system is vastly better than something like Microsoft Word.