"FIRST"??!? (Was: word processor history -- interesting article

Fred Cisin cisin at xenosoft.com
Wed Jul 6 17:57:08 CDT 2016

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> I remember punching my documents on an 026 then running a FORTRAN
> formatter.  Of course, there were many escape codes conventions in the
> formatter for stuff like boldface, underlining, tables, word-wrap
> suppression, "widow" control, etc.
> I wasn't unique in this--indeed the whole practice predates integrated
> circuits, I suspect.
> Perhaps the author counts only WYSIWYG-type wapros and that things like
> the MT/ST don't count either.

Actually, he does give an MT/ST example (Len Deighton).  But, it was one 
where the author composed on a typewriter, and then his secretary re-typed 
and edited on an MT/ST.

Just the pronunciation of "MT/ST" made me want to write a word-processor, 
just to be able to call it "FULL ST".

The whole thing desperately needs to be changed from "earliest" to 
"early", and get rid of the entire "FIRST" nonsense.
The idea of "which authors used word processors 35 years ago" isn't too 
bad, but the idea of a "FIRST" is ludicrous.

Yes, the author seems to be young enough to think of "word-processing" as 
starting with TRS80/Apple][.

Nowadays, the kids think that word processing can not be done without 
on-screen font display.

More information about the cctalk mailing list