Article View: comp.text
Article #3379Re: Why troff?
From: S.J.Leviseur
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1987 20:41
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1987 20:41
20 lines
1249 bytes
1249 bytes
In article <7592@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> My question is this - why does anyone continue to use troff? ... > .... > >Another consideration is that troff will fit in a 16-bit machine, and TeX >hasn't a prayer of doing so. (Yes, there are some subsets that will, but >not the whole thing.) This issue is diminishing in importance, but it's >not trivial. > Come now, I have TeX on an IBM pc, and it's a lot faster than on a VAX. You can also get TeX for the Mac, Atari ST1040 and Amiga. There may be others, but those are the ones I know of. The only one I have used is on the IBM pc, and that certainly seems to be a full implementation. sean sjl@ukc.ac.uk
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2442@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!sjlReferences:
<362@linus.UUCP> <7592@utzoo.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!sjl From: sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: Re: Why troff? Message-ID: <2442@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 3-Feb-87 15:41:08 EST Article-I.D.: eagle.2442 Posted: Tue Feb 3 15:41:08 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Feb-87 06:40:33 EST References: <362@linus.UUCP> <7592@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) Organization: U of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UK Lines: 20 Keywords: TeX, troff