Xref: utzoo comp.text:1878 comp.lang.postscript:548 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!sun!polar!spage From: spage%polar@Sun.COM (S Page Sun Mtn View windows writer/engineer 691-2410) Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.lang.postscript Subject: want a version of ditroff which generates PostScript directly Keywords: page description preview Message-ID: <52973@sun.uucp> Date: 12 May 88 04:34:38 GMT Sender: news@sun.uucp Lines: 37 Here at Sun all our printers speak PostScript, and using NeWS we can preview PostScript directly on-screen. So, why bother producing ditroff typesetter output files which we immediately turn into PostScript using `devps` or TranScript's `psdit`? Even going through the translation into ditroff intermediate format, the PostScript file produced by `psdit` is much smaller than the intermediate file generated by `ditroff` (169K vs 224K for a 38-page manual). I assume that by going directly to PostScript from within `ditroff`, you could generate much more efficient PostScript, e.g. replacing 288 5253(This)N 467(publication)X 887(is)X 968(protected)X 1318(by)X 1428(Federal)X 1714(Copyright)X 2094(Law,)X with 288 5253(This publication is protected by Federal Copyright Law,)show So, does anyone sell and support a `ditroff` which generates PostScript directly? Can anyone explain why ditroff still generates its peculiar intermediate form in this day and age? The tragic irony, which I'm almost to ashamed to admit, is that James Gosling here at Sun wrote such a modified `ditroff` one afternoon (!!) a few years ago, but I couldn't get it to work with our font set and then-current version of ditroff. I saw the future, and it fell away. These are my opinions, not my employer's; NeWS and PostScript and maybe even `ditroff` are TMs of their various owners. Thanks in advance for any pointers or information, =S Page Tech Pubs (windows) spage@sun.COM (415)691-2410 M/S 14-40 {hplabs,ucbvax,decwrl}!sun!spage