From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: cym224@gmail.com (Nemo)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 13:55:15 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] [Groff] It is time to modernise "groff"
In-Reply-To: <CAEoi9W5z35MYK+m=1T8JDWwMmEzvbSTMpeYOsJfJMF35D=ftcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201709041545.v84Fj0qn029704@coolidge.cs.Dartmouth.EDU>
 <201709041828.v84IS3dx005283@darkstar.fourwinds.com>
 <CAP6exY+Ydz_bh4bWDn6XyE4htpNcT_zKKAEHvf_bj5yP3K=X7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEoi9W5z35MYK+m=1T8JDWwMmEzvbSTMpeYOsJfJMF35D=ftcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJfiPzy2SsXt+YMw4BkBSPMcWz_byGR+0qeJduAtnsLtiGVvxQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/09/2017, Dan Cross <crossd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:25 PM, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've found it weird to say the least that usenix doesn't accept troff,
>> but will take Word documents.
>>
>> The plan 9 troff pipeline is still quite complete. A few years back Russ
>> Cox pointed out that new CPUs were so fast that running a
>> statically-linked
>> troff pipeline to process a paper was pretty much instantaneous.
>>
>> He was right and, for a few years, for tech papers, I just switched back
>> to troff/tbl/pic/grap and friends. It was nice.
>>
>
> I used 'tbl' at work the other day and sent the results to Ron in an email;
> it was nice that it "just worked."
>
>         - Dan C.

I may written this before but Tanenbaum, in his many prefaces, praises
troff and states that all his books are written with troff.

N.


>