Re: [Groff] groff_ms.man

[Larry Kollar]

Tadziu Hoffmann <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hehe, couldn't pass this one up.
> 
> \begin{flame}

You call this a flame? :-)
This is another thing I like about the groff list -- it's a bit
friendlier than news:comp.text.tex.

> > > > One can say that groff shares the same problem, but I'm
> > > > slowly working on a macro package to take care of it.
> 
> Uh-Oh.  You're using two different standards in your argument,
> no?  You only complain about the outdated look of TeX documents.
> Do you simply whine about the outdated look of -ms?  No.  You
> sit down and make a great effort of writing a new macro package.

So far I have to agree, including the use of the word "whine." :-)

> What's keeping you from expending the same effort for a TeX
> macro package?  TeX does not force a particular look, as neither
> does groff.  And writing macros for TeX isn't harder than
> writing macros for groff.

Here's where I disagree.
To work effectively with (raw) TeX, you have to purchase the TeXbook.
Groff and troff documentation is readily available for free on the
Internet. This is also something that Texinfo does right.

(Yes, I know that you can find the TeXbook online -- I may even have
a copy -- but critical macros are missing so you can't create a DVI
or print it unless you know enough about TeX to recreate the macros.)

Besides, I'm very familiar with groff syntax, so *for me* it is
easier to write macros for groff.


> > If I have to deal with LaTeX at all, I fire up LyX. Now
> > there's a program that gets out of your way & lets you
> > *write*.
> 
> I simply don't get it.  How does LaTeX not let you write?  I use
> both LaTeX and groff and see no fundamental differences.  The
> problem with using LyX is that you lose all the features a good
> text editor gives you.  Give LaTeX some slack.  You can at least
> read and understand what you've written long time after.  Groff
> is more like a write-only language.  (Like PostScript -- another
> great language, but really hard to read.)

I've alluded to this before. TeX and LaTeX are highly verbose --
perhaps by design. The long tag names disrupt my train of thought,
especially when I'm in a "flow" state and I'm just trying to get
everything down. Groff's tags are short enough that I can type
them in on the fly without interrupting my thoughts. For that kind
of writing, LyX is even more suitable -- the font is easier to read
and it doesn't distract you with margins and page breaks like a
regular word processor would.

As far as write-only goes, I suppose that's in the eye of the
reader. I have, at times, looked at manpage sources instead of
formatting it and never had a problem understanding what was
happening. I've opened -ms documents after six months and picked
right up where I left off. This is another thing that Texinfo
does right -- it's easy to read. In contrast, TeX/LaTeX (to me)
look more like M$ Word's RTF format.

Then again, I'd probably rather write in LaTeX than straight XML.
XML is a fantastic interchange format, but the trick is translating
the document to XML in the first place.


> \end{flame}
> 
> No hard feelings intended, but your argument really
> doesn't do justice to such a fine program as TeX.

Indeed, this is fun. I've been in some real flame wars and I
can stand with the best of 'em, but being nasty isn't fun.

-- 
Larry Kollar   k o l l a r  at  a l l t e l . n e t
"Content creators are the engine that drives value in the
information life cycle."   -- Barry Schaeffer, on XML-Doc