🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Dec13.144818.20785@noao.edu> rstevens@noao.edu (Rich Stevens) writes:
>In article <1710@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wargaski@nwu.edu writes:
>>I believe the folks over at GNU have come up with `groff'.  The output
>>isn't nearly as good as ditroff, though . . .
>
>Uh, just what are you basing this claim on ??  I've used both (DWB 2.0,
>not 3.1) and believe me, I think the groff output is better.  It does
>kerning and has better hyphenation, for example.  If you go beyond
>"ditroff" and look at the whole package (pic, tbl, etc.) things get
>even better.
>
>	Rich Stevens

That was the last time I make a statement to the net based on hearsay
:-)  One of my colleagues here at NU had built -a- version of groff,
and my boss said he didn't think the output was as good.  James
Clark, the author of groff, has already contacted me with the same
questions, and I had to eat crow in front of him, as well :-)

In any case, I plan to grab the latest release, build it, and come to
my own conclusions regarding its output.

Rob ``What am I, goofy!?'' Wargski


-- 

Robert E. Wargaski Jr.			 This is stupid. -- Vila
wargaski@nwu.edu			 When did that ever stop us. -- Avon
ACNS DSS, Northwestern University			Moooo!