* Re: roff.7 HISTORY
2011-11-13 21:45 roff.7 HISTORY Kristaps Dzonsons
@ 2011-11-14 0:47 ` Ingo Schwarze
2011-11-21 22:19 ` Kristaps Dzonsons
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Schwarze @ 2011-11-14 0:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tech; +Cc: Jason McIntyre
Hi Kristaps,
Kristaps Dzonsons wrote on Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:45:08PM +0100:
> This account is based upon <http://manpages.bsd.lv/history.html> and
> has been blessed by many of the parties involved. I cut out the
> programming languages (except troff's) for brevity,
Phrases like "in PL/1" are not that long, and one of the
fascinating things about roff's history are the many -
and nowadays mysterious - languages involved.
So unless the texts gets too clunky, i'd rather keep
those bits.
> but the language is still a little clunky.
> Lots of facts to fit in a paragraph.
Let's see whether i can act as a compressor. :)
> Thoughts? Oks?
I certainly agree with the general direction of fixing my bugs!
> Index: roff.7
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /usr/vhosts/mdocml.bsd.lv/cvs/mdocml/roff.7,v
> retrieving revision 1.34
> diff -u -r1.34 roff.7
> --- roff.7 6 Nov 2011 14:43:14 -0000 1.34
> +++ roff.7 13 Nov 2011 21:44:50 -0000
> @@ -945,14 +945,21 @@
> .%U http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/doctools/troff.pdf
> .Re
> .Sh HISTORY
> -The RUNOFF typesetting system was written in PL/1 for the CTSS
> -operating system by Jerome ("Jerry") E. Saltzer in 1961.
> -It was first used as the main documentation tool by Multics since 1963.
> -Robert ("Bob") H. Morris ported it to the GE-635 and called it
> +The RUNOFF typesetting system, whose input forms the basis for
> .Nm ,
I don't like this change.
It sounds as if RUNOFF was a different system, some kind of
a predecessor of roff, while in fact one evolved into the other,
so smoothly that nobody could figure out any longer who actually
did the renaming, and when. We should really discuss this as *one*
system that was renamed at one point.
So i'd suggest keeping
The RUNOFF typesetting system was written in PL/1 for the CTSS
> -Doug McIlroy rewrote it in BCPL in 1969,
> -Joseph F. Ossanna rewrote it in PDP-11 assembly in 1973,
> -and Brian W. Kernighan rewrote it in C in 1975.
> +was written for the CTSS operating system by Jerome E. Saltzer in 1964.
> +Doug McIlroy rewrote it in 1969, renaming it roff.
I'd not delete the "in BCPL".
That's not too clunky - and relevant, since BCPL is what
inspired C, which is clearly a central point when talking
about UNIX history.
To avoid undue precision at a point where we still don't know,
i'd suggest to replace ", renaming it roff" by a full sentence:
Around this time, the system was renamed to
.Nm .
> +Dennis M. Ritchie rewrote McIlroy's utility for
> +.At v1 .
Why not
... utility in PDP-11 assembly for ...
Usually, you tend to think Ritchie = C = UNIX.
As i said above, showing the entanglement of roff
with the history of UNIX and C is one of the most
intriguing aspects here.
One thing that is often annoying in historical accounts
is that all rough edges as smoothed out, until at last
it seems history was completely linear and everything
happened in the only, logical, boring way it could.
Of course, that cannot be altogether avoided, or you
won't ever finish your narrative.
But this is a good point for a rough edge, giving people
the important feeling: Look, history isn't that simple,
be wary of the cliches. Ritchie rewrote roff for UNIX
in assembly - not in C!
> +Joseph F. Ossanna improved roff and renamed it nroff
> +for
> +.At v2 ,
> +then ported nroff to the C-language as troff, which Brian W.\&
I think just "to C as troff" is clear enough.
Hopefully, few people are around who never heard about C.
> +Kernighan released with
> +.At v7 .
Ugh, break after "troff," to avoid the ugly \&.
> +Kernighan's implementation forms the basis for most modern
> +.Nm
> +implementations and their input.
I'm not sure that's accurate. Almost all modern systems
using roff use groff, and groff is not based on Kernighan's
device independent troff. Only the syntax is.
In case of doubt, just drop the last sentence.
The last thing you mention in a HISTORY obviously
has some relevance to the present, or you wouldn't
end your story at that point.
Yours,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread