4 ms·

This feels performative and not like a well-reasoned choice that the poster would make in the absence of any observers. I used WP for DOS back in the day. It s

This feels performative and not like a well-reasoned choice that the poster would make in the absence of any observers. I used WP for DOS back in the day. It sucked out loud, especially when compared to more modern word processors already available, like Word (for DOS! I don't even mean the Windows version). (The reasons are legion and really beyond the scope of this post.) At the same time, yeah, it sucks that feature creep and whatnot often bloats good tools into something unwieldy and slow. But there are other, modern options available that wouldn't require having to shift your brain back to 1995 or whatever.

taviso 6y ago
Shrug, I only mentioned it because there was a thread about using old word processors. Regarding Word for DOS, I did try it out, but I think you're mistaken - it's capable but not as powerful or configurable as WordPerfect. I think you're calling it "modern" because by default it has CUA key bindings (Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, Shift+Arrows to select, etc.). WordPerfect has those too, File->Setup->Keyboard Layout and then switch the default "Original" bindings to "CUAWP". This is better than Word, because you can edit and rebind the layout, even to macros. For example, I always use Ctrl+W to delete a word, so in WordPerfect I bound it to DeleteToBeginningOfWord. I don't believe that's possible in Word. Another major drawback of Word for DOS is that it's fixed at standard VGA text resolutions (e.g. 40x25 characters), where as WP supports arbitrary resolutions. I can resize my xterm any size up to 255x128 and WP just works. What are the "other, modern options available", with the requirement I've already stated - that I want it to run in a terminal? I would be very happy if there was a vim plugin that makes it a word processor, but I really think I've tried them all.
- __s 6y ago
  I always liked being able to Reveal Codes in WordPerfect to clean up formatting. I'm young tho, I was using WP8
- ubermonkey 6y ago
  >I think you're calling it "modern" because by default it has CUA No. I'm calling it modern because it was stylesheet-based, and followed the eventual dominant paradigm of working with ranges of text and attaching formatting, not inserting codes. CUA menus and keybindings aren't part of my opinion of Word. (In fact, the eventual grafting of CUA menus to it really ruined it, IMO.) Your "major drawback of Word for DOS" is really only a drawback for people trying to run it in an xterm in 2020, decades after its last release, so, uh... I'm baffled at the insistence of a word process in a terminal, honestly.
  - taviso 6y ago
    > I'm baffled at the insistence of a word process in a terminal, honestly. I don't know what to tell you, some people are more productive working in a terminal. I like being able to ssh in, reattach to a screen/tmux session that has my email (mutt), development environment (gdb+vim+ycm), word processor (dosemu+wp), and so on. This is how I've worked for a long time. I agree that everything I use a computer for could be achieved (far less efficiently, but without the steep learning curve) using GUI tools, but I value the efficiency gain and don't mind investing in learning new powerful tools.
    - ubermonkey 6y ago
      I hear people insist they're more efficient in a terminal, and some tasks are friendly to this bias -- but not all of them. And when it comes to the ones not fundamentally text-mode in nature, I have yet to really SEE that happen from those same people when I've worked closely with them. IME, these people are also the ones who insist that the tasks a terminal is bad at, and that they consequently have trouble doing efficiently (e.g., well-formatted text, or formatting text in line with a shared template) are somehow not important or legitimate. The super common pattern is a refusal to engage in HTML email, for example. Sure, mutt is fast for plaintext mail, but if you have to engage in some additional toolchain machinations to read (let alone create) an HTML mail, you lose a bunch of those efficiency points. Maybe you're different! It's possible! But I haven't seen it. As for myself, I absolutely still do composition in plain text 99% of the time, because I've been bitten by extinct file formats too many times. But I'm running native emacs under OSX, in a graphical environment, when I do it. When I need to do something for production to a client, I'm in Word, because it makes creating an attractive document far, far easier than with any prior tool. (Including, it chagrins me to note, Word 5 for DOS.)
xnhma 6y ago
What is wrong about 1995? Nothing fundamental has happened in the last 25 years. Trains are the same (TGV, ICE etc.) planes are the same (a little bit more efficient), TVs are worse with ridiculous colors, house prices are way up and the press is a farce now. And everything spies on the "user". Only thing is that cat pictures can be transferred faster now. Going back to ed would be a regression, but vim and WP are very good editors.

taviso 6y ago

Shrug, I only mentioned it because there was a thread about using old word processors. Regarding Word for DOS, I did try it out, but I think you're mistaken - it's capable but not as powerful or configurable as WordPerfect. I think you're calling it "modern" because by default it has CUA key bindings (Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, Shift+Arrows to select, etc.). WordPerfect has those too, File->Setup->Keyboard Layout and then switch the default "Original" bindings to "CUAWP". This is better than Word, because you can edit and rebind the layout, even to macros. For example, I always use Ctrl+W to delete a word, so in WordPerfect I bound it to DeleteToBeginningOfWord. I don't believe that's possible in Word. Another major drawback of Word for DOS is that it's fixed at standard VGA text resolutions (e.g. 40x25 characters), where as WP supports arbitrary resolutions. I can resize my xterm any size up to 255x128 and WP just works. What are the "other, modern options available", with the requirement I've already stated - that I want it to run in a terminal? I would be very happy if there was a vim plugin that makes it a word processor, but I really think I've tried them all.

__s 6y ago
I always liked being able to Reveal Codes in WordPerfect to clean up formatting. I'm young tho, I was using WP8
ubermonkey 6y ago
>I think you're calling it "modern" because by default it has CUA No. I'm calling it modern because it was stylesheet-based, and followed the eventual dominant paradigm of working with ranges of text and attaching formatting, not inserting codes. CUA menus and keybindings aren't part of my opinion of Word. (In fact, the eventual grafting of CUA menus to it really ruined it, IMO.) Your "major drawback of Word for DOS" is really only a drawback for people trying to run it in an xterm in 2020, decades after its last release, so, uh... I'm baffled at the insistence of a word process in a terminal, honestly.
- taviso 6y ago
  > I'm baffled at the insistence of a word process in a terminal, honestly. I don't know what to tell you, some people are more productive working in a terminal. I like being able to ssh in, reattach to a screen/tmux session that has my email (mutt), development environment (gdb+vim+ycm), word processor (dosemu+wp), and so on. This is how I've worked for a long time. I agree that everything I use a computer for could be achieved (far less efficiently, but without the steep learning curve) using GUI tools, but I value the efficiency gain and don't mind investing in learning new powerful tools.
  - ubermonkey 6y ago
    I hear people insist they're more efficient in a terminal, and some tasks are friendly to this bias -- but not all of them. And when it comes to the ones not fundamentally text-mode in nature, I have yet to really SEE that happen from those same people when I've worked closely with them. IME, these people are also the ones who insist that the tasks a terminal is bad at, and that they consequently have trouble doing efficiently (e.g., well-formatted text, or formatting text in line with a shared template) are somehow not important or legitimate. The super common pattern is a refusal to engage in HTML email, for example. Sure, mutt is fast for plaintext mail, but if you have to engage in some additional toolchain machinations to read (let alone create) an HTML mail, you lose a bunch of those efficiency points. Maybe you're different! It's possible! But I haven't seen it. As for myself, I absolutely still do composition in plain text 99% of the time, because I've been bitten by extinct file formats too many times. But I'm running native emacs under OSX, in a graphical environment, when I do it. When I need to do something for production to a client, I'm in Word, because it makes creating an attractive document far, far easier than with any prior tool. (Including, it chagrins me to note, Word 5 for DOS.)

xnhma 6y ago

What is wrong about 1995? Nothing fundamental has happened in the last 25 years. Trains are the same (TGV, ICE etc.) planes are the same (a little bit more efficient), TVs are worse with ridiculous colors, house prices are way up and the press is a farce now. And everything spies on the "user". Only thing is that cat pictures can be transferred faster now. Going back to ed would be a regression, but vim and WP are very good editors.