Re: [dwm] dwm and patches

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:54:22 +0200

To make a final statement. This is UNIX, in UNIX there is only
one proper format for me to document the usage and purpose of
software, also called a manual, and that's a man page ;)

I'm no friend of all those different help systems nowadays. Man
pages are the way to go, still and hopefully also in the future.

(Also because it's simple to just run troff to make a ps or a
 pdf out of a man page, if it gets necessary to print manual books
 about specific UNIX software).


On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:41:51PM +0200, David Tweed wrote:
> Firstly, I've been away for 3 days which is why I've been slow responding.
> |On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 08:15 +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> |> On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 09:30:04PM +0000, David Tweed wrote:
> |> > predominant, they have to go with that. It just really irks me that
> |> > the unix-derived world the standard for documentation is in a language
> |> > that's _only_ used for manual pages. Hell, I've learned (or at least had
> |> > to at some points produce stuff in) tex,latex,hmtl, xml, docbook,pythondoc,
> |> > doxygen, and I'm kinda bored with it all.
> |
> |The book "Unix Text Processing" is available here in a variety of
> |formats:
> |
> Just to be clear. Firstly, all I really wanted to do in my original message
> was to find out if there was a way to do manpage writing/modification
> without having to deal with having to figure out troff.
> Secondly, I wasn't suggesting that roff (or whatever the language is called)
> was exceptionally hard. It's just that it's _yet another_ language to have to figure
> out, which given my understanding (at the time) that these days (eg, the last
> ten years) it wasn't used for anything other than manpages and that I really
> don't have _time_ for all the intellectually interesting projects I want to
> tackle, let alone the vast mass of languages that seem to be needed to do
> only one thing, annoys me.
> FWIW, I still think that the proliferation of "not more than marginally
> better than each other" languages raises the barrier for "itch-scratcher"
> code modifiers. Of course whether that's important is dependent on
> your view of how important they are.
> > troff has been there for ages, and it is not a man-page
> > language, it is simply a formatting-language. Those guys at Bell
> > Labs wrote papers and books in troff+eqn. troff makes it easy to
> > present man pages in a vt100 pager, as PostScript document, as
> > html, or whatever you want. Uriel made his presentations with
> > troff btw.
> Note I didn't say it "was" a manpage language, but that it was only
> _used_ nowadays for manpages (although I think I missed off the
> nowadays). I'm happy to learn how somebody has decided to structure
> yet another computer langugage _provided I can amortise the cost of that learning
> over a lot of end work_; my "annoyance" with man-pages is that I'll
> certainly write at most twenty over the course of my life. Uriel writing his
> presentations in roff presents a counterexample that .
> Anyway, thanks to Antoni Grzymala I now have a set of tools to
> avoid that. I'll stop ranting now :-)
> Sorry for the flame war,
> cheers, dave tweed

 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Thu Sep 28 2006 - 12:54:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:31:37 UTC