Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 6:53:34 PM UTC+5:30, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> On 2014-12-31, at 13:20, Rusi wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:56:16 PM UTC+5:30, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> >> On 2014-12-31, at 05:55, Rusi wrote:
> >> 
> >> > emacs does a rather poor job of word processing
> >> >
> >> > The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
> >> > document processors
> >> 
> >> Today, the solution is LaTeX (without the groff part),
> >
> > I personally could get more out of groff than out of latex.
> > Also it looked more beautiful and the ps files were much smaller
> >
> > [20+ years ago...]
> 
> (Approximately) 20 years ago, when LaTeX2e was the hot new thing, it
> might have been the case.  Prior to LaTeX2e, customizing your LaTeX
> output was a nightmare.  Nowadays, with thousands of classes and
> packages, including memoir, koma-script, tikz, beamer and many others,
> the situation is a lot different - especially with the very dynamic
> community, releasing several packages/modules/plugins every month.  And
> don't forget the ongoing work on LaTeX3 and LuaTeX (though this last is
> more on the ConTeXt side of things; ConTeXt is also being constantly
> worked on, and is capable of many things, including native XML input,
> XML/ePUB output, very good support for tables, images and columns -
> LaTeX is notoriuously lacking good support for columns and wrapping text
> around images).  Is groff also developed at such a pace?  (I'm just
> asking, I don't know.)

groff development is dead (best I know)
groff images -- Hoo! Boy!!

Good to remember that the DTP revolution centered around things like pagemaker
doing images and text together.
Does latex do a half decent job of images?? Dunno... I find it implausible