From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: A Word Processor for Linux Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 14:42:59 GMT
In article <2479q0$9s6@bradley.bradley.edu>,
Jerry Whelan <guru@camelot.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In article <1993Aug10.014818.24385@cc.gatech.edu>,
>Byron A Jeff <byron@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>-} The real solution is to have a product that is actually all things to all
>-} people. To do that it needs WYSIWYG, TeX, simplicity, complexity, extensibilty,
>-} intuitiveness, and of course context based help! ;-)
>
>-} So imagine a system with a TeX heart and bunches of WYSIWYG faces.
>
> I haven't followed this thread more than four or five articles,
>so someone else might have already said something along these lines,
>but I think that using TeX, or any other layout language, as the
>heart of such a product is short-sighted. I think that if anyone is
>decides to do something about working towards the `ultimate doco
>system' they ought to look at using something like SGML as its core.
>With the source documents in a markup language, it is relatively
>easy to produce TeX, Lout, RTF, Postscript, etc output. Plus you'll
>have the added benefit that there is some sort of meaning in the
>structure of the document.
I think you missed my point about people using what they're used to.
TeX is widely used and widely understood in the Unix community. Most likely
any people that undertake this task will use what they already understand.
On the other hand I'm always willing to take a look at something new and
use it if the benefit is significant (look at Linux as an example). So
Where on the net can I get some info on SMGL? Is there any ftp'able software
that uses it? Does software already exist to do the conversions you specified
above?
In general it's human nature to stick close to what you know and what you're
used to. I gurantee that the DOS/Windows transports and TeX will be used
more often than anything we'll ever come up with because folks are used to
it. Someone commented that they picked a WP that was less powerful than some
others because they "liked" it. No quantifiable quality just an emotional
response. I still use vi over emacs even though intellectually I know that
emacs is far and away a better editor. But vi is so firmly ingrained in
my computer usage that I'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming to
anything else because it's what I used to. Incidentally that's why after all
these years the damn editor has not kicked the bucket and in fact keeps
getting ported to new systems. In fact I'm using it to type this message ;-)
Because of this particular human nature I'd suggest asking yourself this
question when bringing new technology to the table:
Does this new technology bring enough new benefits to the task to justify
a shift to this new technology?
I ask this question about SMGL. Even though it may be better suited to the
task, is it so much better than TeX to justify my learning it? Is it so
much better that everyone will want to give up TeX and use it? Is it so
much better that the people that undertake the task of writing this editor
will want to write it with SMGL as the core as opposed to TeX, with the
probably emotional bias of already knowing TeX and not SMGL? Sticking with
what you know even if it is short-sighted is a part of human nature. That's
why we have so few visionaries in our society. (WOW that was a broad sweep!)
And remember in answering these questions look at it from the standpoint
of someone who doesn't already know SMGL, not someone who does.
Think about the fact that FORTRAN and COBOL are not only still here but
growing... ;-)
I hope that SMGL or its bretheren are that good.
Later,
BAJ