groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] Why is it...


From: Clarke Echols
Subject: Re: [Groff] Why is it...
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:35:44 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)

If *roff is only good for manpages, why was I able to create
master artwork for creating printed circuit cards, including
circuit path lines on both sides of the board as well as a
pad master for drilling holes through the card and a solder-resist
mask?  :-)

Most folks think you need a CAD system to do that.

I use *roff for letters all the time.  I also edited and typeset
a book a couple of years ago using groff, and I'm working on
one of my own right now.

If I can generate PostScript from groff and the printers can
take that PostScript file direct to plate, who needs TeX?

I agree that *roff is very intimidating, as is Unix within which
it was born.  But once you memorize the needed "stuff", it's a
breeze to use.  I even use my own macros so I get *exactly* what
I want, the way I want it.

In a sense, it's like the guy who wants a tractor and trailer with
a 13-speed manual transmission so he can haul 80,000 pounds of
freight down the highway, versus the "Joe six-pack" bozo who thinks
his half-ton Mazda pickup is a "truck", and he even wants an
automatic trasmission so he doesn't have to learn to use a clutch.

WYSIWYG gives you "permission" to do certain things within the
boundary limits the software creator sets.  You don't have those
limitations with groff, although pie charts are a problem, but
I've learned to use embedded PostScript for that...

I'd be happy to write the book if I had the time and there was a
market for it.  But I fear that the "standardization" of PDF,
MicroGarbage "Works" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), for
the world of imbecilic computer "users" out there has brought
a permanent end to serious work.  Why learn a system when you
can point and click, and think you're doing real "work" without
the learning curve?

Some folks *love* Word.  Try yanking five lines and dropping
them in after line 45 in a file, like the child's play of doing
it in vi.  Try doing anything you want without removing your hands
from the home-row-keys position.

Then there is my Kinesis keyboard I've been using for over 10
years.  I ***LOVE*** that thing!  It took a month to get used to,
but now I find a "normal" keyboard very difficult.  But my
tendonitis is gone forever!  And I can still cruise at about 70-80
words per minute.  I don't need no stinkin' mouse...

Clarke

Peter Schaffter wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007, Robert Thorsby wrote:
On 15/12/07 04:25:40, Michael Kerpan wrote:
...that groff/troff seems to be written
off by so many as "obsolete" ...
IMO it is all a matter of perceptions.  People think that a 30 year
old application that, even today, does not have a GUI **must** be
obsolete.

So true.  I get the feeling, when explaining the clear advantages of
*roff (or TeX, for that matter) to people raised in "gotta-be-GUI",
that they think I'm trying to convince them the Victrola is superior
to the iPod.

Add to this, *roff does not conform to The Debian Way (which
includes derivatives, such as *buntu).

After so many years, I still don't quite grasp what The Debian Way
is, and why that works against groff.  Especially since I have never
run any GNU/Linux distro other than Debian, and have used groff
exclusively for all my document needs (groff built from source, of
course).

There are no modern textbooks on *roff.  The three I have are
about 20 years old.  How many people are aware of the accompanying
documentation to Peter's mom macros?

If someone could figure out a way to get funding for writing a
modern text on *roff, I'd take on the project in a heartbeat.  I've
done what I can to make the documentation for mom an advertisement
for groff, but it will never be enough.  A thoroughly edited, hard
copy textbook on *roff is what's needed.

Finally, we are our own worst enemies.  Those who inhabit this
list, though incredibly polite and invariably helpful to newbies,
are always posting about arcane subjects.

Big laugh over this, since both halves of the statement are so
true.

Today, I use groff for everything, including business letters.

This gets me thinking. *roff has always appeared horribly
intimidating since so much of the available documentation suggests
it's primarily for creating scientific/mathematical/technical
documents, leading average janes-joes to conclude it's too unwieldy
for simpler tasks.

If one were wanting to do some serious *roff advocacy, one would
need to emphasize *roff's usefulness for basic document needs (e.g.
business letters) first, so that users attracted to *roff's way
of doing things could then undertake the sort of exploration that
begins with the question: "Gee--I wonder if *roff can do <fill in
the blank for an advanced task>, too?"

Years ago, I got a copy of the O'Reilly book, _Running Linux._  In
the chapter on text processing, which dealt with *roff and TeX, the
TeX section gave detailed instructions for writing a business letter
using LaTeX; tellingly, the *roff section gave only instructions for
writing a manpage.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]