groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Groff] Mission statement, second draft


From: Ralph Corderoy
Subject: Re: [Groff] Mission statement, second draft
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:01:37 +0000

Hi Anton,

> > I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff.  The input language of
> > troff is superior for mark-up that doesn't clutter the prose
> 
> Nobody I know of uses raw tex nowadays.  I'd advise against reading
> The TeXbook.  For people who just want to get their standard
> technical/scientific documents prepared I'd suggest recent books on
> latex by Kopka and Daly, Goossens, Mittelbach, Rahtz, Gr├Ątzer, etc.

I read books on LaTeX too.  My point still stands.  troff's minimal
syntax is a lot less intrusive for the reading and editing of the prose.
\subsection*{Foo bar} and \emph{inlined} noise are annoying.  It may as
well be XML.

> I claim it is a lot quicker, for a first year Mech Eng UG student, who
> was force fed MS stuff only, prior to coming to us, to make a standard
> lab report in latex than in groff. By standard, I mean: sections,
> tables, figures, bibliography and cross-referencing for all of these.

I expect you're right, i.e. they want no control over the output format
and are happy with whatever it gives them.  Any need to deviate from
that norm and I think it gets more tricky.  :-)

Cheers, Ralph.



reply via email to

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