From: Lewis Perin <perin@...>
Date: 2000-07-17T12:46:33-04:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:04088] Re: OT: Re: P. of least effort -- fragile typesetters

hipster <hipster@xs4all.nl> writes:

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000  03:16:54 -0500, Conrad Schneiker wrote:
> [rather OT]
> > > Having wrestled with Word, Star Office, eqn|tbl|troff,  and hand crafted
> > > PostScript drawings (ouch!), I'd be interested.  Is Lout flexible enough?
> > 
> > This is the first time I've looked at it. Certainly looks interesting.
> > Anyone else have any experience with it?
> 
> When I first came across UNIX typesetting I thought TeX would be a bit
> too hairy and gave Lout a try instead. Although the system is well
> worked out (and small), it felt awkward. Limited font support, .ps only
> output, and a (IMHO) cryptic and consequently hard to memorize syntax.
> (this was about 3 years ago)
> [...]

I've never used Lout, but it seems to me that a Ruby front end should
have little trouble with ugly Lout syntax.  Of course, this would
apply to [La]TeX and ...

/Lew
-- 
Lew Perin / perin@mail.med.cornell.edu / perin@acm.org
www.panix.com/~perin/