15 Apr
2017
15 Apr
'17
9:09 p.m.
On 2017-04-15 10:23 AM, Michael Kerpan wrote:
Comparing documents produced by Heirloom troff and
modern versions of
LaTeX, I just can't see a huge difference. The main thing TeX has going
for it is LyX, which makes composing documents a whole lot more
comfortable for folks raised on WYSIWYG. If a tool like that was
available for troff...
I'm not only talking about the _output_. But my intention isn't to
denigrate troff but to show that they are completely different animals.
A glance through the TeXbook would confirm.
TeX is a complete domain-specific language, page model, and runtime
environment (without even discussing its layered frameworks like LaTeX).
I admit it took me a few weeks or months of study back in the late 1980s
to understand this distinction; previously I had been using a
troff-level markup (perhaps even troff-inspired) on Mac called
"JustText", which generated PostScript of course.
One _can_ typeset books in both troff and TeX, but that doesn't make
them at all equivalent. The process and possibilities are different. For
example, that simple task of producing two different output formats from
the same manuscript, that I mentioned upthread, is made possible by TeX
macros. But the sophistication of its page model is also required for
any nontrivial layout, table, diagram, math, or just typographic
refinement.
Some projects _have_ tried to replace TeX.
https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/120271/alternatives-to-latex
--T
Mike
On Apr 14, 2017 6:24 PM, "Toby Thain" <toby(a)telegraphics.com.au
<mailto:toby@telegraphics.com.au>> wrote:
On 2017-04-14 9:56 AM, Michael Kerpan wrote:
Of course, these days, there's a version of troff that borrows TeX's
layout rules, while also adding vastly improved font handling,
support
for the most useful/widely used groff extensions, and more. Why
Heirloom
troff isn't more widely used is a puzzle for the ages.
No matter how far you tart up the former, Troff and TeX just aren't
playing the same ballgame.
--T
Mike