🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <FISCHER.91Dec17174504@loke.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk
(Lars P. Fischer) writes: 
>Given the fact that 1) TeX has got the linebreaking and kerning right
>2) The algorithms are published in the scientific literature 3) the
>implementation is freely available for all to see and use, why is that
>just about no one of the zillions of high end wordprocessors and DTP
>systems get it right?

I recently used a commercial product which shall remain nameless here;
suffice it to say that it is an MS Windows word processing program
marketed by a company of which the LPF urges a boycott. This program did
indeed include TeX's math typesetting (used via an icon system which is
much more tedious than TeX's control codes). However, it couldn't space
properly, kerning was only as provided by the font, and ligatures didn't
exist. Maybe it's ok for producing letters, but I sure wouldn't want to
use it for setting anything important.

Yes, Knuth's code is strange verging upon the outright peculiar; yes,
TeX wants some hideous fonts that few people really like (though, thanks
to Tom Rokicki, PS support is just fine); and, yes, raw TeX has the most
revolting programming language I've seen since perhaps Trac or Snobol3.
But it does the job. I sure would like a WYSIWYG front end to it (not
the same as previewing, thanx), but TeX/dvips is a testament to the real
value of free software.
--
\    Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca>      "There is no law that vulgarity and
 \   Department of Computer Science      literary excellence cannot coexist."
 /\  University of British Columbia                        -- A. Trevor Hodge
/  \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394