🚀 go-pugleaf

>>Why be so low tech and use troff?  Troff is so non-state-of-the-art.
>>TeX is a much better choice for technical document preparation; it has
>>a lot more going for it.  As far as I'm concerned, the only reason to
>>use troff is because you can't get TeX for your machine (less and less
>>likely these days).
>
>Well, a bunch of very large documents (Computer Graphics Standards in
>various stages of preparation) are all done on troff because it is one
>of the most widely-available tools that does a good enough job for just
>about everything we need.  I agree, it's not state-of-the-art, but when

And troff/nroff will do things TeX can't do.  See "On the power of
traps and diversions in a document preparation language" by I.H.Whitten,
M. Bonham, and E. Strong, Software Practice and Experience, 1982, 12,
1119-1131.

We would like to be able to use troff and mix Mac pictures into the
PostScript output.  We don't have TeX, and we do have a fair investment
in troff macros and related programmes.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt