Re: Preaching DSSSL (Re: using LOUT)

[Mike Dowling]

>>> On Wed,  3 Sep 1997 14:37:50 +0100, address@hidden (Sebastian Rahtz) said:

Sebastian> i am not just being perverse raising this. i have bitter experence
Sebastian> persuadng people to use TeX, who fall about laughing when you say
Sebastian> "um, er, you have to install these files, and alter your PATH, and
Sebastian> run a batch process..."; Lout wont be that different, and a packaged
Sebastian> up Windiozerelease with a setup.exe makes the masses happy. all they
Sebastian> need then is bread.

I don't want to defend TeX, but the PATH problem is a DOS problem.  A well
installed TeX under UNIX will know where its various files are, and so there is
no need for and environment variables.

That lout runs under all these operating systems that people have cited speaks
for Jeff's dedication, but it surely entails considerably unnecessary effort.
In many cases (e.g. PGP) DOS compatibility considerably degrades the final
product.  Surely, the purpose of standards is to avoid such nonsense.  For
example, Jeff may wish to keep all the file name to the 8+3 DOS format, but I
personbally would only use POSIX.1, and have files names long enough as to
indicate the file's contents.  If a program is good, as TeX amply demonstrates,
somebody will port it to the non-conforming systems.

Cheers,
        Mike