[COFF] [TUHS] Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie

[COFF] [TUHS] Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie

[crossd]

[+COFF and TUHS to Bcc:]

Okay, here we go: troff vs. TeX food fight.

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:

> I actually wacked a bunch of the Unix docs to make them look a little
> better, I should see if I can find that.
>

I'd like to see that; presentation of some of those docs is getting a bit
long in the tooth.

I agree that roff is awesome, it's a bummer that Latex seems to be
> the winner (which I think is purely because the roff/eqn/pic/etc
> docs weren't widely available back in the day).
>

I have to disagree with this, however. TeX (and more specifically LaTeX)
won out for technical writing because, frankly, it produces nicer output
than *roff did. If I were writing a thesis or paper, I'd frankly rather use
LaTeX or AMSLaTeX.

I've used eqn to try and typeset math; it's OK if it's all that you've got.
An nroff approximation for output to the terminal is kind of nifty, but
beyond that it simply pales in comparison to TeX. I know that people have,
and perhaps still do, typeset mathematics with eqn/neqn/troff, but given a
choice between the two, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a
mathematician who would choose troff over TeX; similarly with most
technical papers.

Now tbl and pic, those are pretty cool. Even then, GNU pic will output TeX
for incorporation into other documents, and LaTeX has some very nice
table-creation environments that largely subsume the functionality of tbl.

Now don't get me wrong, I *like* roff, and I use it occasionally for
one-off things, but for serious writing for publication I'd generally chose
LaTeX.

        - Dan C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20180723/f9f72ab3/attachment.html>

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[grog]

On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 12:41:46 -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that roff is awesome, it's a bummer that Latex seems to be
>> the winner (which I think is purely because the roff/eqn/pic/etc
>> docs weren't widely available back in the day).
>
> I have to disagree with this, however. TeX (and more specifically
> LaTeX) won out for technical writing because, frankly, it produces
> nicer output than *roff did. If I were writing a thesis or paper,
> I'd frankly rather use LaTeX or AMSLaTeX.

What about a book?  Back in the late 1980s/early 1990s I used TeX and
LaTeX, but when I started writing "Porting UNIX Software" (O'Reilly),
they insisted on me using (g)roff with their proprietary macros.  I
resisted, of course, but it was clear that I didn't have much choice.
And then I discovered that it was *so* much easier to use, and I've
never used TeX again, though I made significant modifications to the
macro set, to the point that it was no more O'Reilly than ms.

My big issue was that it produces nicer output than TeX.  In those
days at any rate you could tell TeX output a mile off because of the
excessive margins and the Computer Modern fonts.  Neither is required,
of course, but it seems that it must have been so much more difficult
to change than it was with [gt]roff (or that the authors just didn't
care).

Still, TeX has one significant advantage over [gt]roff that I'm aware
of: it adjusts paragraphs, not lines, and it seems that in some cases
this give better looking layout.

This reflects the situation in about 1993 or 1994.  Maybe TeX has
become more usable since then.  Certainly LaTeX refuses to look at my
old LaTeX source.

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20180724/1233fd4b/attachment.sig>

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[lm]

Back in 1998 or 1999 I was program chair for Linux expo.  Which was
no big deal, it meant I formatted the papers and got the page numbers
right for the proceeedings.  I nudged people towards troff and one
guy went there.  He said "this was so much easier than tex, it is
faster, easier, why don't more people use this?"   What he said.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:52:06PM +1000, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 12:41:46 -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree that roff is awesome, it's a bummer that Latex seems to be
> >> the winner (which I think is purely because the roff/eqn/pic/etc
> >> docs weren't widely available back in the day).
> >
> > I have to disagree with this, however. TeX (and more specifically
> > LaTeX) won out for technical writing because, frankly, it produces
> > nicer output than *roff did. If I were writing a thesis or paper,
> > I'd frankly rather use LaTeX or AMSLaTeX.
> 
> What about a book?  Back in the late 1980s/early 1990s I used TeX and
> LaTeX, but when I started writing "Porting UNIX Software" (O'Reilly),
> they insisted on me using (g)roff with their proprietary macros.  I
> resisted, of course, but it was clear that I didn't have much choice.
> And then I discovered that it was *so* much easier to use, and I've
> never used TeX again, though I made significant modifications to the
> macro set, to the point that it was no more O'Reilly than ms.
> 
> My big issue was that it produces nicer output than TeX.  In those
> days at any rate you could tell TeX output a mile off because of the
> excessive margins and the Computer Modern fonts.  Neither is required,
> of course, but it seems that it must have been so much more difficult
> to change than it was with [gt]roff (or that the authors just didn't
> care).
> 
> Still, TeX has one significant advantage over [gt]roff that I'm aware
> of: it adjusts paragraphs, not lines, and it seems that in some cases
> this give better looking layout.
> 
> This reflects the situation in about 1993 or 1994.  Maybe TeX has
> become more usable since then.  Certainly LaTeX refuses to look at my
> old LaTeX source.
> 
> Greg
> --
> Sent from my desktop computer.
> Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
> See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
> This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
> reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA



-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	     lm at mcvoy.com             http://www.mcvoy.com/lm 

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[ralph]

Hi Greg,

> Still, TeX has one significant advantage over [gt]roff that I'm aware
> of: it adjusts paragraphs, not lines, and it seems that in some cases
> this give better looking layout.

Gunnar Ritter's Hierloom troff, a descendent of OpenSolaris's, can
adjust paragraphs rather than lines.
http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/doctools.html

Ali Gholami Rudi's neatroff, a troff re-implementation, adjusts
paragraphs.  Search for `paragraph-at-once' at http://litcave.rudi.ir/
or http://litcave.rudi.ir/neatroff.pdf

There could be others.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[cym224]

On 24/07/2018, Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
> Back in 1998 or 1999 I was program chair for Linux expo.  Which was
> no big deal, it meant I formatted the papers and got the page numbers
> right for the proceeedings.  I nudged people towards troff and one
> guy went there.  He said "this was so much easier than tex, it is
> faster, easier, why don't more people use this?"   What he said.

As a datum point, I know of very people using raw TeX -- actually
none; everyone whom I know uses LaTeX (including me).  And AST
typesets all his books in troff for another datum point.

What is sad is the IETF's decision to push people towards XML for RFCs.

N.

>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:52:06PM +1000, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>> On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 12:41:46 -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I agree that roff is awesome, it's a bummer that Latex seems to be
>> >> the winner (which I think is purely because the roff/eqn/pic/etc
>> >> docs weren't widely available back in the day).
>> >
>> > I have to disagree with this, however. TeX (and more specifically
>> > LaTeX) won out for technical writing because, frankly, it produces
>> > nicer output than *roff did. If I were writing a thesis or paper,
>> > I'd frankly rather use LaTeX or AMSLaTeX.
>>
>> What about a book?  Back in the late 1980s/early 1990s I used TeX and
>> LaTeX, but when I started writing "Porting UNIX Software" (O'Reilly),
>> they insisted on me using (g)roff with their proprietary macros.  I
>> resisted, of course, but it was clear that I didn't have much choice.
>> And then I discovered that it was *so* much easier to use, and I've
>> never used TeX again, though I made significant modifications to the
>> macro set, to the point that it was no more O'Reilly than ms.
>>
>> My big issue was that it produces nicer output than TeX.  In those
>> days at any rate you could tell TeX output a mile off because of the
>> excessive margins and the Computer Modern fonts.  Neither is required,
>> of course, but it seems that it must have been so much more difficult
>> to change than it was with [gt]roff (or that the authors just didn't
>> care).
>>
>> Still, TeX has one significant advantage over [gt]roff that I'm aware
>> of: it adjusts paragraphs, not lines, and it seems that in some cases
>> this give better looking layout.
>>
>> This reflects the situation in about 1993 or 1994.  Maybe TeX has
>> become more usable since then.  Certainly LaTeX refuses to look at my
>> old LaTeX source.
>>
>> Greg
>> --
>> Sent from my desktop computer.
>> Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
>> See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
>> This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
>> reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy            	     lm at mcvoy.com
> http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[perry]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:52:06 +1000 Greg 'groggy' Lehey
<grog at lemis.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 12:41:46 -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
> My big issue was that it produces nicer output than TeX.  In those
> days at any rate you could tell TeX output a mile off because of the
> excessive margins and the Computer Modern fonts.  Neither is
> required, of course, but it seems that it must have been so much
> more difficult to change than it was with [gt]roff (or that the
> authors just didn't care).

It's a single command most of the time to change font.

   \usepackage{palatino}

for example. (That's at the start of many of my documents.)

It's also a single command to change your margins. Similar complexity,
a dozen chars and you're done.

I don't love TeX's command language, it's gross, but it's not hard to
do simple things like that, and the typesetting results are kind of
remarkable if you know what you're doing. The most beautiful books in
the world (by a lot) are typeset in modern TeX. I don't even think you
can do microtypography in any troff that I've seen, and forget things
like having both lining and text figures in the same
document.

Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry at piermont.com

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[grog]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2541 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 17:24:40 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:52:06 +1000 Greg 'groggy' Lehey
> <grog at lemis.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 12:41:46 -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
>> My big issue was that it produces nicer output than TeX.  In those
>> days at any rate you could tell TeX output a mile off because of the
>> excessive margins and the Computer Modern fonts.  Neither is
>> required, of course, but it seems that it must have been so much
>> more difficult to change than it was with [gt]roff (or that the
>> authors just didn't care).
>
> It's a single command most of the time to change font.
>
>    \usepackage{palatino}
>
> for example. (That's at the start of many of my documents.)

That's the case now, I assume.  I've just dragged out the TeXbook
(February 1989), LaTeX user's guide and reference (referring to LaTeX
2.06 (April 1986)) and "TeX for the Impatient" (1990).  None of them
mention this command, and after 20 minutes of searching I wasn't able
to find any reference in any of them to any font family except CM, and
thus also no way to change to one.  About the only titbit I found was
that you needed separate commands for each font at each size, and that
this was impractical.  A far cry from troff's .ps command.

> I don't love TeX's command language, it's gross, but it's not hard
> to do simple things like that, and the typesetting results are kind
> of remarkable if you know what you're doing. The most beautiful
> books in the world (by a lot) are typeset in modern TeX. I don't
> even think you can do microtypography in any troff that I've seen,
> and forget things like having both lining and text figures in the
> same document.

It's possible, and I've done it (even simulating the “TeX" symbol).
But then, I've written my own macros, and I found it easier than
messing with TeX.

Still, this isn't a TeX-bashing session.  I was just explaining why I
changed.

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20180726/9df44ce6/attachment.sig>

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[bakul]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:22:20 +1000 Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog at lemis.com> wrote:
>
> That's the case now, I assume.  I've just dragged out the TeXbook
> (February 1989), LaTeX user's guide and reference (referring to LaTeX
> 2.06 (April 1986)) and "TeX for the Impatient" (1990).  None of them
> mention this command, and after 20 minutes of searching I wasn't able
> to find any reference in any of them to any font family except CM, and
> thus also no way to change to one.  About the only titbit I found was
> that you needed separate commands for each font at each size, and that
> this was impractical.  A far cry from troff's .ps command.

You may be used to an earlier version of LaTeX (LaTeX 2e?).
Things are considerably better now. I didn't use LaTeX much
for over a decade but now, with editors such as TeXWorks and
faster machines, rendering is quite fast. There are also some
webbased TeX editors that are quite good (and show rendered
page in one pane). Many more fonts are available now. And
there is plenty of help available at tex.stackoverflow.com.

For short simple documents I generally use MarkDown or
AsciiDoc.  Their light markup means source files are quire
readable in a terminal window, and they still render well to
an html page or pdf (and you can include images).  For more
complex editing tasks I switch to LaTeX (or XeLaTeX). And
Unicode has helped for Indic scripts. I don't have to use
transliterated Roman with diacritics for Indian languages
(hard to read/write in this form for a native speaker).

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[perry]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:22:20 +1000 Greg 'groggy' Lehey
<grog at lemis.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 17:24:40 -0400, Perry E. Metzger
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:52:06 +1000 Greg 'groggy' Lehey
> > <grog at lemis.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 12:41:46 -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >> My big issue was that it produces nicer output than TeX.  In
> >> those days at any rate you could tell TeX output a mile off
> >> because of the excessive margins and the Computer Modern fonts.
> >> Neither is required, of course, but it seems that it must have
> >> been so much more difficult to change than it was with [gt]roff
> >> (or that the authors just didn't care).
> >
> > It's a single command most of the time to change font.
> >
> >    \usepackage{palatino}
> >
> > for example. (That's at the start of many of my documents.)
>
> That's the case now, I assume.  I've just dragged out the TeXbook
> (February 1989), LaTeX user's guide and reference (referring to
> LaTeX 2.06 (April 1986)) and "TeX for the Impatient" (1990).  None
> of them mention this command,

It's true, books that are thirty years old and over might not be the
best reference for the software.

Even back then, though, the commands involved were pretty simple. They
just weren't mentioned in the books you read, probably because in 1986
and the like there weren't an abundance of fonts available.

(I never use the CMR fonts except in my CV. There, it's a signal that
it was written in TeX.)

Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry at piermont.com

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[lm]

Wasn't the Hierloom troff Jeorg's work?  Did Gunnar take over?

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:00:41AM +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> > Still, TeX has one significant advantage over [gt]roff that I'm aware
> > of: it adjusts paragraphs, not lines, and it seems that in some cases
> > this give better looking layout.
> 
> Gunnar Ritter's Hierloom troff, a descendent of OpenSolaris's, can
> adjust paragraphs rather than lines.
> http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/doctools.html
> 
> Ali Gholami Rudi's neatroff, a troff re-implementation, adjusts
> paragraphs.  Search for `paragraph-at-once' at http://litcave.rudi.ir/
> or http://litcave.rudi.ir/neatroff.pdf
> 
> There could be others.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers, Ralph.
> https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	     lm at mcvoy.com             http://www.mcvoy.com/lm 

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[grog]

On Thursday, 26 July 2018 at  8:22:54 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:22:20 +1000 Greg 'groggy' Lehey
> <grog at lemis.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 17:24:40 -0400, Perry E. Metzger
>> wrote:
>>> It's a single command most of the time to change font.
>>>
>>>    \usepackage{palatino}
>>>
>>> for example. (That's at the start of many of my documents.)
>>
>> That's the case now, I assume.  I've just dragged out the TeXbook
>> (February 1989), LaTeX user's guide and reference (referring to
>> LaTeX 2.06 (April 1986)) and "TeX for the Impatient" (1990).  None
>> of them mention this command,
>
> It's true, books that are thirty years old and over might not be the
> best reference for the software.

They were the ideal reference when I used TeX.  That was my point.
Clearly it has improved, but too late for me.

> Even back then, though, the commands involved were pretty
> simple. They just weren't mentioned in the books you read, probably
> because in 1986 and the like there weren't an abundance of fonts
> available.

They were available for groff, and O'Reilly gave me a set of Garamond
Light (their fonts of the day).  I briefly considered using them for
TeX, but that ended up in the "too hard" basket.

> (I never use the CMR fonts except in my CV. There, it's a signal
> that it was written in TeX.)

Exactly.  And of course my aversion to TeX documents relates to
exactly that look.  Probably there are many documents that I just
don't recognize.

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20180727/a6c89fbf/attachment.sig>

[COFF] roff vs. Tex (was: Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie)

[cym224]

On 26/07/2018, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog at lemis.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 July 2018 at  8:22:54 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
[...]
>> (I never use the CMR fonts except in my CV. There, it's a signal
>> that it was written in TeX.)
>
> Exactly.  And of course my aversion to TeX documents relates to
> exactly that look.  Probably there are many documents that I just
> don't recognize.

Amusingly (or not), a colleague told me that he only takes seriously
documents in CMR because all his professional journals are in CMR.
Personally, I use Times for legal folk and Palatino for others -- when
not forced to use Stutter (a.k.a. Word). that is.

N.