From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: From: Akshat To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:49:50 -0700 References: Subject: Re: [9fans] troff fonts with special characters Topicbox-Message-UUID: 568f77dc-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 You are right in that Lout cannot handle non-ASCII input, which is something that kept me from using it much, as well. However, the overall approach to the syntax and what not is much nicer than TeX. Also, I would argue that Lout has much nicer output than both, troff and TeX. On Sep 12, 2010, at 12:38, Rudolf Sykora wrote: > On 12 September 2010 20:25, Akshat > wrote: >> If you like the cleanliness and simplicity of troff files for writing >> papers, and would like to avoid the hideousness of TeX, then you >> might want >> to try Lout. I ported it to Plan 9 earlier this year and just >> copied it to >> my contrib: contrib/akumar/lout.tgz >> >> >> Best of luck, >> ak > > Thanks for the idea. > Actually I was considering this a while ago. I even printed out the > manual.(I have lout in linux.) > However, from what I read there I gained the feeling that > -- it doesn't know utf (thus you can't really just write a single > letter 'alpha' as you can in troff) > -- it somehow seems to be an 'all together software' (as opposed to > tbl/pic/eqn/...), which I don't like. > -- the syntax for writing math is more complicated than in eqn. The > syntax is rather closer to TeX, which I wanted to avoid, though the > results, I feel, are no better than eqn's. > True, I haven't actually tried the software much. May be that I am > also wrong in some points. > > Well, don't take me wrong. I have not much against (plain)TeX. When I > was about 15 and got a printed version of TeXBook, METAFONT, I was > amazed. Its documentation can't be better (nothing to compare to > anything). The algorithms are superior. It's not so big either > (although today's distributions are horrible, >1GB [this I really > hate]; but the core, as someone here is trying to put up, is fine; I > mean KerTeX or what). It's only that troff is even much simpler and > yet good enough. And also that the notation is much more human. Making > a table with tbl or a simple graph with grap is a pleasure. Equations > written for eqn can be read back from the source, without seeing > millions of \\\\\\\.This is, I would say, what totally grabbed me. And > the documentation as written by Kernighan is also awesome --- short, > answers many potential questions right away, explains things clearly. > This is why I also like plan 9, generally (though almost whatever I > try doesn't work). TeX is very 'strict', precise; but you must have a > good knowledge of it to talk it into something. Troff is more > straightforward, simpler, and is more fun, some things are playful, > e.g. traps. > > Thanks > Ruda >