🚀 go-pugleaf

> . . . but there is a large class of documents that 
> cannot be done at all well with the kind of interactive system that you are
> talking about. Anything where the structure is as important as the content.
> Cookbooks like the @i[Joy of Cooking]. Encyclopedias. Airline schedules.
> Dictionaries. Reference manuals for computer software.
> . . .
> Interactive systems are just fine for small documents, and for documents
> whose appearance is extremely important with respect to their content. They
> are not OK for large documents.
> . . .
> 	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
> 	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA

Brian!  You surprise me!  I thought you had more foresight than that.
Where's all that PARC money to SU gone?

I think this harkens to the proposal some one made two years ago for
something to follow on troff and TeX.  Frankly, my opinion is to make
something with at least pseudo See-what-you-get.  This "assembly formatter"
approach be-speaks of of some batch oriented thinking.  Sure, computers
aren't powerful enough yet....  That's never been an excuse to stop people
from using computers.

Your comment about structure really shook me.  There have been numerous
times where sequential/alphabetic structure has never helped me.  This is
where I think that computing gives greater power over hardcopy documentation.
I suggest reading "Sciences of the Artificial" again by you know who
(CMU days).

While I fully appreciate the fact that the WYSIWYG is not perfect:
equations, tables, and so forth, I don't think this is an excuse to
perpetuate assembly language macros in text processing.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA