From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 28994 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2022 19:01:04 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 Jan 2022 19:01:04 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8DD949C6BF; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 05:01:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941089C0BF; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 05:00:30 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="EVWhoWeY"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 951D29C0BF; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 05:00:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AA1F9C0BE for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 05:00:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id p14so13363495plf.3 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:00:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r2ikttCsbKieYehMzM7k0rAAp3MOIYxk3hiC+rwWMSY=; b=EVWhoWeYwOcRpv43dKsBo80zFvUkFskdVXgwe3qpXl1zeCPCek1fKAAFziJbdnPCEO ln2scJiCJcmnJvjZm7d1GKpHmiLQtmSEHN/hLidxLrPB31S+IsqoC/oS4z4ABP5zU0Sc QjT6U8X3gXB6aplHHKBvsPbSiQyRY1npY+2W7fN2fD7szvSlLf0l50kvDJ3Yb9f2sJaZ AVd6e60fe0x6fBkFaZIFhkTlXj+wknW7mbMaCFFnxzl4RHQ/dlX2N4fmaFgDjSInydT2 YnTGIcI1hKA5wH2o29V1Cz6zlzFBSLUskz6Vc+zxngIQ2PJ1OZvIRdla3bIzkePyAC72 SlTQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r2ikttCsbKieYehMzM7k0rAAp3MOIYxk3hiC+rwWMSY=; b=ZWPQuniBEdQn4gEvnapbQ6J+cU2nxZtE0qYvCT6KtTf5zfQmEdjx0lZ8di2ry/SJq2 5AbuEHHbU+W3ybVlWECNj/o6PVivQJ54oQFbZcTG4/QF6vgFUonVMmSNiwpRGADLueLn kB/foIpaWezm7rk5SR8njbWkwFDTAYwtmjV7Kf42YI8F8wqAK9JB3TmR527ZkwBhj83r Q+UopIO8Ct+pTrJEdtpysri73jfQggYBe5MFrd3pmKzXwJLTjOVxZo6dFP2JgFwklC0a jvZSkdWUz8QcW849r0xX8psDAIq1a06eGxCjcmiq4lQMjlIs/1JDJGCFVQg0kqMGC1RZ 0ZAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/gLca0cUUq1XjJoQ8s5K2mvk3Cuv2CMbcTe3ldaQ2/+4d17Y5 EeSGxa4mkwm4s6WuQstRhqhh1OqQUekduUvNFUQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4YqQnL59xF6K6XKhkmfnyx2h8om/VU0fON//i8abAeIEKn3K0DTTQ5mCxWJwCr49Ybin2K4FSbL5JXrIp41k= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:985:b0:4bb:d3c:170c with SMTP id u5-20020a056a00098500b004bb0d3c170cmr915628pfg.73.1641841226536; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:00:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211231234039.GU31637@mcvoy.com> <20220101005605.GL75481@eureka.lemis.com> <20220101031511.GB8135@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20220101031511.GB8135@mcvoy.com> From: Blake McBride Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 13:00:15 -0600 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000015d95605d53ef377" Subject: Re: [TUHS] TeX and groff (was: roff(7)) X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list , Douglas McIlroy Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000015d95605d53ef377 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I've used nroff/troff/TeX with many of their various macro packages over about a 35 years span. During that time, I've done many single-page documents as well as documents as long as 350 pages. I also modified a version of nroff to create business forms for Laster printers. This is still being used commercially. This is one person's opinion: 1. Perhaps owing to my limited intelligence, and in spite of the fact that I've used TeX successfully on many documents, I have never been able to fully understand TeX. Apparently, it is too much for me. Troff, on the other hand, has made full sense to me. I was able to make it do what I wanted almost always. I enjoy using troff more because I find it simpler, and therefore, more pleasant to use. 2. Looking at the output, it is my opinion that TeX produces better-looking documents. Perhaps this is just no more than one man's esthetic opinion. I do not know what it is that I find better. It's just the sense I get. On the other hand, I find troff output to be sufficiently good in nearly all cases. 3. troff is a good and reasonable tool. TeX is too big and complex an environment in most cases. Although it is true that all of the complexity of the TeX environment is successfully hidden in virtually all cases. I find the huge and complex environment offputting. Very unfortunately, I see troff disappearing. I've worked with a number of teams over the last ten years. In every case, I was the oldest engineer. Also, in each case, I was the only engineer who had even heard of troff. They understand the problems of binary formats such as Word and OpenOffice. Their solutions are things like markdown, AsciiDoc, et al. They are doing this development and making use of these tools without knowledge of troff. The same is true to a greater or lesser degree with TeX, except that I've seen TeX used at universities. I like that groff and TeX are rock solid and well supported. In fact, I wrote a report generator for a modern web development framework using troff. I use it to develop reports on a routine basis. (kissweb.org) Sadly, however, if word of their existence doesn't get out there, I see them both disappearing in not much longer than a generation. This would be sad indeed. Blake McBride On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 9:16 PM Larry McVoy wrote: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 11:56:05AM +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > > The only negative reaction was table of contents complaints, LaTex is > > > 2 pass so it can do them, roff is one pass so you have to fiddle with > > > things. A lot. > > > > I solved that issue in later documents with two passes in the Makefile > > targets, frobbing things like references and contents in between. > > I was troff friends with W Richard Stevens, he shared with me a lot of > what he did in troff. He did the two pass thing. Nice guy and got as > much out of roff that anyone could, all of his books were troff. > --00000000000015d95605d53ef377 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've used nroff/troff/TeX with many o= f their various macro packages over about a 35 years span.=C2=A0 During tha= t time, I've done many single-page documents as well as documents as lo= ng as 350 pages.=C2=A0 I also modified a version of nroff to create=C2=A0bu= siness forms for Laster printers.=C2=A0 This is still being used commercial= ly.=C2=A0 This is one person's opinion:

1.=C2=A0 Per= haps owing to my limited intelligence, and in spite of the=C2=A0fact that I= 've=C2=A0used TeX successfully on many documents, I have never been abl= e to fully understand TeX.=C2=A0 Apparently, it is too much for me.=C2=A0 T= roff, on the other hand, has made full sense to me.=C2=A0 I was able to mak= e it do what I wanted almost always.=C2=A0 I enjoy using troff more because= I find it simpler, and therefore, more pleasant to use.

2.=C2=A0 Looking at the output, it is my opinion that TeX produces b= etter-looking documents.=C2=A0 Perhaps this is just no more than one man= 9;s esthetic opinion.=C2=A0 I do not know what it is that I find better.=C2= =A0 It's just the sense I get.=C2=A0 On the other hand, I find troff ou= tput to be sufficiently good in nearly all cases.

= 3.=C2=A0 troff is a good and reasonable tool.=C2=A0 TeX is too big and comp= lex an environment in most cases.=C2=A0 Although it is true that all of the= complexity of the TeX environment is successfully hidden in virtually all = cases.=C2=A0 I find the huge and complex environment offputting.
=
Very unfortunately, I see troff disappearing.=C2=A0 I've= worked with a number of teams over the last ten years.=C2=A0 In every case= , I was the oldest engineer.=C2=A0 Also, in each case, I was the only engin= eer who had even heard of troff.=C2=A0 They understand the problems of bina= ry formats such as Word and OpenOffice.=C2=A0 Their=C2=A0solutions are thin= gs like=C2=A0markdown,=C2=A0AsciiDoc, et al.=C2=A0 They are doing this deve= lopment and making use of these tools without knowledge of troff.=C2=A0 The= same is true to a greater or lesser degree with TeX, except that I've = seen TeX used at universities.

I like that groff a= nd TeX are rock solid and well supported.=C2=A0 In fact, I wrote a=C2=A0rep= ort generator for a modern web development framework using troff.=C2=A0 I u= se it to develop reports on a routine basis.=C2=A0 (kissweb.org)
Sadly, however, if word of their exist= ence doesn't get out there, I see them both disappearing in not much lo= nger than a generation.=C2=A0 This would be sad indeed.

Blake McBride


On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 9:16 PM Lar= ry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com= > wrote:
= On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 11:56:05AM +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote= :
> > The only negative reaction was table of contents complaints, LaTe= x is
> > 2 pass so it can do them, roff is one pass so you have to fiddle = with
> > things.=C2=A0 A lot.
>
> I solved that issue in later documents with two passes in the Makefile=
> targets, frobbing things like references and contents in between.

I was troff friends with W Richard Stevens, he shared with me a lot of
what he did in troff.=C2=A0 He did the two pass thing.=C2=A0 Nice guy and g= ot as
much out of roff that anyone could, all of his books were troff.
--00000000000015d95605d53ef377--