On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 01:40:36PM +0000, Rev Simon Rumble wrote: > On Mon 11 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] bloviated thus: > > > Eh? I use it all the time. Unless you mean, "use groff instead"? I > > have to agree, that I think nowadays the groff version of troff is > > better than the original, as of about last year. > > No, don't use troff or groff. There are _FAR_ better ways to lay out > a document that don't have you learning incredibly obscure commands > and syntax. Troff has had its day.
I have to disagree. > > it's almost fast enough to do interactively. > > My point precisely. Use something that _IS_ interactive, or at least > something that is a bit easier to learn. I find there are lots of situations where the simplest and/or fastest way is to use groff. That includes any learning. There are also lots of situations where it isn't. This would include interactive and non-interactive usage. Groff is not a shrine, an homage to the good old days. It is not a case of bit rot, waiting for release from collective computer memories. It remains, under certain circumstances, an optimum solution in a trade-off between size, learning curve, usability, functionality and speed. That it reamins so is a tribute to the original minds behind it. Jamie -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug