> groff gets no love even though it can deliver nice output. The syntax is even more arcane
I think you've answered it yourself. Also damning is that groff doesn't support UTF-8 directly.
Most groff guides only do very basic formatting. Complex math/equation layout can be awful. Image files apparently need to be ps/eps. I just keep running into issues.
There's also no accessible ecosystem for groff. CTAN. Code highlighting (ideally, I want to use pygments - i guess i could write a backend if i was really invested). TikZ is great and something I've invested in a lot. Bibliography management. Also, not an issue for me, but an issue for adoption is Windows support.
As for competing with Word's workflow, at least with some TeX variant I have a chance. Installer frameworks. Editors with previews. So a few GiB to not run into these limitations sounds worth it to me to be productive.
I'm not saying groff couldn't be used for complex stuff, but I wouldn't know where to begin, or want to work around all those limitations.
I think you've answered it yourself. Also damning is that groff doesn't support UTF-8 directly.
Most groff guides only do very basic formatting. Complex math/equation layout can be awful. Image files apparently need to be ps/eps. I just keep running into issues.
There's also no accessible ecosystem for groff. CTAN. Code highlighting (ideally, I want to use pygments - i guess i could write a backend if i was really invested). TikZ is great and something I've invested in a lot. Bibliography management. Also, not an issue for me, but an issue for adoption is Windows support.
As for competing with Word's workflow, at least with some TeX variant I have a chance. Installer frameworks. Editors with previews. So a few GiB to not run into these limitations sounds worth it to me to be productive.
I'm not saying groff couldn't be used for complex stuff, but I wouldn't know where to begin, or want to work around all those limitations.