Re: [Groff] *roff for desktop publishing - is it feasible?

[Steve Izma]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:57:57PM +0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Groff] *roff for desktop publishing - is it feasible?
> 
> ...
> I'd start with some
> suitable macros to simplify setting a consistent style
> for the whole page.  On the other hand, this is probably
> why my designs invariably appear somewhat technical and
> lack a certain artistic flair.  To strain the analogy,
> groff is great for making blueprints, not so much for
> impressionist paintings.

I would give you more (typographical) credit for that. I think
the whole point of typography is to make texts more readable than
impressionist paintings. I like to read what I typeset, not just
look at it.

It's also my opinion that so-called desktop publishing has
developed primarily for visual artists (i.e., graduates of
art schools) and its paradigm has much more to do with the
arrangement of objects on a canvas than on a page. Therefore its
main tool is the mouse rather than the keyboard, and its main
mode is cut-and-paste rather than document structure and flow.

For these reasons the paradigm of troff and TeX (I think you
could call it "control flow" or programmability, or something
like that) just seems uninteresting and obscure to those
dominating the graphic arts industry today.

        -- Steve

-- 
Steve Izma
-
Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada  N2H 1W6
E-mail: address@hidden  phone: 519-745-1313  cell: 519-998-2684

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style>