On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:24:39 -0400
Peter Schaffter <pe...@schaffter.ca> wrote:
> set and change every applicable type parameter: family, font, size,
> colour, leading, spacing, indent, quad, fill, and vertical
> placement.
>
> In other words, mom expands creative options rather than limiting
> them. That's the whole point.
Font height \H'' missing.
> > The framework takes away flexibility.
>
> No. A *poorly implemented* framework takes away flexibility. A well
> implemented one adds to it.
Even if the framework is perfectly designed, if its intended scope
covers HTML as well, it likely has limited postscript support.
> > So to create business cards I had to do it myself from the
> > scratch.
>
> Mom provides a sufficiently flexible framework that you could have
> created the business cards from scratch using only mom macros and
> not one single low-level groff request. I know, I've done it.
> Eight-up with logos, crops, and register marks.
>
> > OKAY, that's the idea. A framework doesn't provide smaller
> > entities (the UNIX thing) to be more creative (not only
> > graphically).
>
> I want to insist that you're talking about *inadequate* frameworks,
> about which all your comments are true, not well-designed ones. A
> well-designed framework is one that supports you when you want to
> wander down the creative path.
Well, I don't want to blame inadequate frameworks. A tl;dr-user may go
well using an inadequate framework. Nobody can know everything. Your
claim assumes that perfection is possible and finally everyone will go
for it. Instead I want to blame certain problems using certain
frameworks, to categorize some and find the ones that blend in with me.
By creativity I also mean how to draft macros, BTW.
