Is there any wordprocessor in unix

[Chris Torek]

In article <1989Jul17.211715.6273 at eci386.uucp> woods at eci386.uucp
(Greg A. Woods) writes:
>... to become a "pro" at typing simple *roff documents, using a
>good quick-reference card, takes a couple of hours.  As has been
>said, the menu's probably won't let you do something uncommon in
>the first place.  The DWB documentation and the plethora of other
>publications about *roff will provide a vast body of knowledge
>from which to draw, and will help you do almost anything
>imaginable.

This is true.  n/troff's major failing, though, is (in my opinion)
in its blind acceptance of virtually arbitrary input.  If you feed
it modem-noise, it will produce *something*; the only question is
what.  n/troff is simply not helpful enough at pointing out errors.

(Its next-down failing is that it sets type line-by-line, which makes
it hard to prevent bad hyphenation, widows, clubs, and the like.  TeX
typesets things a page at a time [approximately] and can do a better
job, although chapter-at-a-time would be better yet.)

>I've also seen the objection against *roff because of the ease of
>hiring people already trained with WP.  Why not re-train them.
>The experience will undoubtably help raise their understanding of
>computers.

The type of manager who hires `word processor' temporaries typically is
disinterested in raising his% hirelings' understandings.  Also, many
people---particularly those in secretarial positions---seem to have
`compuphobia'.  They fix the idea `I can't program computers' (despite
the fact that they do it every time they set their digital alarm
clocks) and have to be fooled into it (`this ain't a computer, it's a
Word Processor').  Unfortunately, this approach seems to work as well
as more direct education---at least at first.  (Indeed, from some
points of view, it may work better, as it leaves behind a pool of
people with limited skills, who will still be there next time they
are needed.)
-----
% I get the feeling some might object to `her'.  Perhaps no one would
  object to the non-animist pronoun (`its').
-----

>The big stumbling block is often the simple act of entering the
>text to be word-processed.  [a good screen editor, by which he means
>`not vi'] bundled with Unix would help tremendously.

Maybe; maybe not.  One of the big advantages of WYSIWYG `word
processors' here is that the typist gets immediate feedback, not only
of the text being entered, but also of the control operations.  By
definition, that feedback will always be missing from `batch
formatters'.  On the other hand, WYSIWYG systems tend to lack
structural feedback.  For some purposes this is fine, and word
processors do have their places.  For others---including letter-
writing, which is one of those `business applications'---reusability
and skipping irrelevant details are important; structure-oriented batch
formatters win here.  (`.LH' or `\letterheader' can generate the
company logo and the return address all at once; a phone number need
only be changed in one place; etc.  WYSIWYG systems tend to allow these
things as special cases, if at all.  If your case is more special
than most, you may be out of luck.)

Anyway, there really are tradeoffs.  If you need a series of different
one-shot special-purpose documents, or if you have spot a WYSIWYG
system that does exactly what you have to do, a `word processor' may be
the right thing.  If you want to do fine typesetting, though:  if you
want to print books, journals, theses, and the like: then you probably
want something like troff or TeX.  (And---Valar help you---if you are
producing advertisements, colour pictures, glossies, and so on---there
is probably nothing that does *exactly* what you need.  Raw PostScript
might come close.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris at mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris