Hello, trebol <trebol55...@yahoo.es> wrote:
> So maybe I’ll try ms, I > find it more simple (the groff_ms man page show me in a cou‐ > ple of lines all the basic things I want to do in a simple > way), and like Ralph suggests, extend it with my own macros > to fill my needs. That's the step I followed four years ago, and it seems to me it was a good choice. > I find groff awesome and I can’t believe > it fits in 10M. I feel all the system’s potential, so while > I’m learning I would like to know the experiences of users > writing science texts, novels, poetry and other works > using this packages, and the main problems they encoun‐ > tered. I'm actually writing my philosophy thesis with troff (heirloom troff), and before that, I've writen my master memory, the lessons I teach, and some articles with it. The onliest problem I encoutered was concerning the bibliography: I have to follow the ISO-690 standart, and the french typography. So, I've first written a macro to handle that whith ms. It was a nice way to learn both refer and troff internals. After that, I've decided to create my own macro set, whith the layout I wanted (marginals notes instead of footnotes). > This could help me to resolve my personal "TeX vs > Groff" advantages and disadvantages dilemma (And other peo‐ > ple reading the mailing list too). This has been discussed a lot here. It also have been discussed on plan9 mailing list. You could have a look at these discussion if you still need to be convinced. Know that there are at least four things to compare: Kertex (a Tex distribution that only contain Plain Tex), Latex, Groff and Heirloom Troff. Each one has advantages. In my opinion, the advantage of troff (and groff) is that it's easy to create and hack macro. The disadvantage is that the macro you need probably doesn't exist yet. Less is more... > Sorry for my English, and thanks to all. Sorry for mine ! Cheers, Pierre-Jean.
