🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <L:A6AIA@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <345@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) writes:
>> Hey Peter, just 'cause WP doesn't do something that any word processor
>> in its right mind aught to do is no reason to slam the entire evolution
>> of word processing.
>
>Sure it is. Next time it will be something else. Basically, a procedural
>language is more versatile than a strictly table-driven formatter. And
>of course it's harder to use. You gets what you pay (in terms of learning
>time, in this case) for.

No arguments here.  I won't begin to say that table-driven formatter's
are 'better' than procedural languages but we both agree that the
learning curve is much smoother and quicker.  The question becomes one
of how much formatting is required to get the job done.  For the most
part, in most cases, table-driven formatters like Manuscript and Word
Perfect are enough.

My comments in the original were that Lotus Manuscript had quite a
number of capabilities that WP did not have.  I wasn't trying to
compare word proecessors (a la WP, Manuscript etc) with procedural
languages for page layout.

Kevin
-- 
Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University 
UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc}!atha!kevinc
Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA