"Arnold G. Gill" <GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (03/01/90)
In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) says: > >What advantages are there in learning troff or Tex? Aren't their days >numbered? Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors. >Why aren't Unix people? I read in a book about Unix(that black >paperback book from Byte) that the major disadvantage in using a word >processor was that it couldn't handle large documents. It seems to me >that this limitation has been overcome. TeX does not seem to be a word-processor to me, but rather a document preparation package. If you insist on writing straight text, I agree that TeX is, in general, overpowered and perfectly good results can be obtained from any word-processor or even text editor. However, where TeX excels is in the addition of chemical/mathematical/special language symbols. It figures out sizing by itself, reformats pages/equations/paragraphs, automatically calculates indices, footnotes, table of contents, figure numbering, etc. The output from TeX is close to being beautiful (IMHO). The only drawback is a bit of a problem with the learning curve, and the fact that one cannot see one's results instantly - but there are many dvi previewers out there. And with the addition of including postscript graphics files into TeX, even that difficulty has been alleviated. I would say that TeX is a scientific document preparation programme. For what it is designed for, nothing else compares (though something like ChiWriter is arguably close). ------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Arnold Gill | | | Queen's University at Kingston | If I hadn't wanted it to be heard | | BITNET : gilla@qucdn | I wouldn't have said it. | | X-400 : Arnold.Gill@QueensU.CA | | | INTERNET : gilla@qucdn.queensu.ca | | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) (03/01/90)
In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors. Gee, I guess those of us in VMSland only *thought* we were using TeX... /----------------------------\ /----------------------------------------\ | John Price | Internet: jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu | | 5-145 Knudsen Hall | BITNET: price@uclaph | | UCLA Dept. of Physics | DECnet: uclapp::jprice | | Los Angeles, CA 90024-1547 | YellNet: 213-825-2259 | \----------------------------/ \----------------------------------------/
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/01/90)
What advantages are there in learning troff or Tex? Aren't their days numbered? Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors. Why aren't Unix people? I read in a book about Unix(that black paperback book from Byte) that the major disadvantage in using a word processor was that it couldn't handle large documents. It seems to me that this limitation has been overcome. -Mike
kono@csl.sony.co.jp (Shinji Kono) (03/01/90)
Inside the Unix culture, every tools or editors should be connected each other. Simple word-processor such as FullWord cannot do it, since Unix has his own ( bad or not so bad ) way of connections. TeX or *roff is such kind of things. In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu> , melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)writes > numbered? Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors. > Why aren't Unix people? Soon, we will have WysWyg type layout structure editor with in Unix. But if that Very Good Tool is independent from all other unix tools or files, nobody (at least not I :-) will use it. For example, Publiss is such kind of thing. So I prefer xfig rather than MacDraw, even how good MacDraw is. -------- Shinji Kono $B2OLn??<#(J Sony Computer Science Laboratory, Inc.: kono@csl.sony.co.jp
sean@castle.ed.ac.uk (S Matthews) (03/01/90)
In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >What advantages are there in learning troff or Tex? Aren't their days >numbered? Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors. >Why aren't Unix people? I read in a book about Unix(that black >paperback book from Byte) that the major disadvantage in using a word >processor was that it couldn't handle large documents. It seems to me >that this limitation has been overcome. > >-Mike There have been a couple of answers to this that seem to have missed the point, a little. 1. TeX is not a word processing tool. 2. Word processing tools (wysiwig) are not capable of handling large documents satisfactorily (even if you think they are). To enlarge on 2. a little further, you may think that the results of your favorite wysiwig wp are up to TeX standards, but in larger documents you quickly start to lose stylistic coherence. To keep that coherence, you need a markup language, be it troff, sgml or TeX. The difference is analogous to the difference between compilers and interpreters (don't push the analogy to far, though). If you need a quick ten line program, then an interpreter such as awk is ideal, and it comes with all sorts of powerful facilities. If what you have in mind is for general consumption, and you expect it to come in at ~100,000 lines, then you would use a compiler, even though a compiler is not nearly as user friendly as a well designed interpreter. Using TeX to write a one page letter is overkill of resources and effort---Use word or even Macwrite. Use Macwrite to produce camera ready copy for a book and the result will be a mess. Use Word to produce crc for a book and the result will be satisfactory but amateur. Use TeX (intelligently) and the result will be professional (I know from experience). Use TeX badly and the results will be horrible (like Fortran written in ML---is that even possible?). The point is that markup languages will always be better for big jobs, even though (because?) they demand a lot more discipline. Sean
jeh@simpact.com (03/02/90)
In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > What advantages are there in learning troff or Tex? Aren't their days > numbered? Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors. > Why aren't Unix people? I read in a book about Unix(that black > paperback book from Byte) that the major disadvantage in using a word > processor was that it couldn't handle large documents. It seems to me > that this limitation has been overcome. I `sold' my company on using LaTeX for documentation. We've been happy with it for about two years now. We keep looking at Word Perfect, et al, and rejecting it/them. Reasons: 1. "Large documents" means not just many pages but also complex structure. Chapters, sections, subsections, figures, tables, listings, examples, TOC, TOF, TOT, TO*, indexes, bibliographies, footnotes, and cross references between all of the preceding... Word Perfect (WP) can do *some* of what LaTeX can do with this stuff. Not nearly all. 2. TeX input files are plain old Ascii text files. As such they can be prepared on any machine in the company, even if that machine does not run TeX. Under VMS, the Language Sensitive Editor is a great way to use LaTeX; the templates `know' most of the commonly-used structures. For another example, until very recently we were still doing contract work on HP 1000 series equipment. The programmers did the first and second cuts at their documents on the machine they were familiar with, using the text editor they were familiar with. (I wouldn't wish that editor on anybody, but one can get used to almost anything and once you're used to one, switching frequently between it and another editor is a real productivity-killer.) Eventually, of course, the stuff got shipped over to the Tech Pubs group, who use TexTures on Macs. Which brings me to... 3. TeX is non-proprietary and runs *compatibly* under more operating systems than any proprietary word processor I know of. Yes, I know, WP runs under MS-DOS, VMS, Macintosh, and (I believe) various flavors of Unix... but did you know it isn't quite compatible? That the MS-DOS version has features that others don't? (At least so I am told by the Tech Pubs people, who have been researching alternatives.) So, even if you can get your WP files from one machine to another without munging the format, you can't guarantee that you'll get the same output everywhere. This is not a problem with TeX. 4. The "plain Ascii" nature of TeX input has other advantages. For example, it can be generated by other programs. In one document we needed to describe the Ascii/EBCDIC translation provided by one of our packages. Since the translation table was already in the code, nobody wanted to transcribe it into the document format (and track revisions, etc.). It took about half an hour to write a little program to take the table in "C" code and emit a file that could be \input within a LaTeX \tabular environment, so that the document will ALWAYS reflect what the code says. You can play similar games with VMS HELP and LaTeX documents, too. 5. Since TeX is just a program like any other it "plays well" with other programs... like configuration management (CMS under VMS, rcs/sccs/etc. under Unix) and build utilities (MMS, make). In the above example, for instance, a makefile guarantees that when the code changes the doc gets updated to match. I could go on. However, this subject, like text editors, is like a religion. If you aren't convinced now you probably won't ever be. --- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Chair, VMSnet [DECUS uucp] and Internals Working Groups, DECUS VAX Systems SIG -------------------------------------+----------------------------------------- Internet: jeh@simpact.com, | Future shock: A sense of bewilderment or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com | felt by those who were not paying Uucp: ...{crash,decwrl}!simpact!jeh | attention. -- Analog (Jan 90)
rusty@garnet.berkeley.edu (rusty wright) (03/02/90)
Some people argue that with mark up systems (tex, troff, etc.) you can do things like automatic numbering of sections, figures, etc. or do global reformatting via macros (for example, change all section heads to use a different font). This may still be mostly true but I suspect as time goes by the wysiwyg systems will start allowing you to do this as well. In fact, I would guess that in time they will allow you to do everything that you can do in tex. Therefore, to me the more important issues are (1) With a wysiwyg system you are constantly made aware of the formatting; some would say that you are being distracted by the formatting. During the writing you should only be worrying about the content and leave worrying about the appearance until just before the final draft. (2) Wysiwyg systems tend to be system-specific. You probably can transport a Microsoft Word document between a PC and a Mac if both run Word but you probably won't be able to transport it to a Unix machine. But maybe Microsoft will come out with Word for Unix and then you can pay Big Bux for it for that machine as well. For a lot of people item 2 probably doesn't matter. That's fine with me, but they should be aware of it. For a lot of other people item 1 is a very emotional issue. Many people who have used a wysiwyg system just can't understand how anybody would want to use a mark up system. They think that you are giving up so much with a mark up system. I find it hard to discuss with them. So I try not to get into arguments with them over it; if they're happy with what they're using then that's great. I'm just glad that they're not using a typewriter. -- -------------------------------------- rusty c. wright rusty@violet.berkeley.edu ucbvax!violet!rusty
witold@enme1.ucalgary.ca (Witold Jan Owoc) (03/02/90)
In article <RUSTY.90Mar1112619@garnet.berkeley.edu> rusty@garnet.berkeley.edu (rusty wright) writes: >Some people argue that with mark up systems (tex, troff, etc.) you can >do things like automatic numbering of sections, figures, etc. or do >global reformatting via macros (for example, change all section heads >to use a different font). This may still be mostly true but I suspect >as time goes by the wysiwyg systems will start allowing you to do this >as well. In fact, I would guess that in time they will allow you to >do everything that you can do in tex. The WYSI(A)WYG - A standing for almost - systems available for UNIX already have the above features (names not included on purpose). It allows to obtain consistency and professional look even throughout the large documents. But... the best possible placement of equations in WYSI(A)WYG I have obtained using the eqn (troff equation preprocessor) language, being invoked from within WYSI(A)WYG system. Here the analogy of S. Matthews mentioned in the article <2547@castle.ed.ac.uk> >The difference is analogous to the difference between compilers and >interpreters (don't push the analogy to far, though). should be recalled. With some objects like mathematical equations (and I suspect the tables) program has to know all the components before taking decision upon the placement. Please do not flame on me that one or another wordprocessor is able to handle equations. I am talking about *mathematics* not just integrals and subscripts. On a side if mathematics is that what you wanted you would better use TeX (contact AMS about LamS-TeX). You can get more from it than with eqn | troff pair. Regards Witold PS. Please consider also why it is Almost What You Get. witold@enme.UCalgary.CA | Witold Owoc witold%enme@UNCANET.BITNET | The University of Calgary, Canada uunet!ubc-cs!calgary!enme1!witold |Department of Mechanical Engineering ...alberta!/
jac@muslix.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) (03/02/90)
In article <2547@castle.ed.ac.uk> sean@castle.ed.ac.uk (S Matthews) writes: > >Using TeX to write a one page letter is overkill of resources and >effort---Use word or even Macwrite. Well, to each his own. I strongly disagree though. Using the Latex letter style you can make a letter template with which it is trivial to make very professional business letters. Granted I probably wouldn't install TeX if that's all I was ever going to do with it, but once you have it, you might as well. > Sean Jim (jac@gandalf.llnl.gov)
adrian@mti.mti.com (Adrian McCarthy) (03/02/90)
In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu> , melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)writes > numbered? Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors. > Why aren't Unix people? Using an editor and a text formatter (such as (La)TeX or *roff) is more akin to writing source and using a compiler than conventional word processors. Many programmers (including myself) prefer this approach for all of the benefits of the source->compiler->code model: ASCII sources are generally more portable, small changes to macros will propagate significant changes in a consistent manner, other sorts of general tools can be used on the sources. To me, writing on a word processing package is like programming in machine language. The first runoff-type processors were a big step up; they are like writing in assembly language. The more sophisticated systems like TeX & LaTeX are similar to high-level programming languages. I also prefer breaking apart the writing from the formatting because it is easier to concentrate on the content rather than the format There are too many distractions in a(n) WYSIWYG environment. Aid.
lamarche@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Louis Lamarche) (03/02/90)
I am a Word(4.0) user on the Macintosh. Typically, I produce scientific reports having ~100 pages. Scientific equations are handle with a program called Expressionist (very WYSIWYG oriented) from which I cut and paste. On the other side, I work with peoples pleased with Tex and Latex. I am not convinced to switch to Tex or LaTex, for the following reason: o In my opinion figures help to understand a subject. o Tex and LaTex do not handle figures easily, so peoples dont put figures in their documents. (This is what I see) o Sometimes a figure may equal a thousand of words :-) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Louis Lamarche, IREQ | lamarche@ireq.hydro.qc.ca | CP 1000, Varennes | or | QC, Canada, J3X 1S1 | 514-652-8077 (office) 514-324-2919 (home)
ghe@mist.cs.orst.edu (Guangliang He) (03/03/90)
In article <597@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca> lamarche@s1.UUCP (Louis Lamarche) writes: |I am a Word(4.0) user on the Macintosh. Typically, I produce scientific reports |having ~100 pages. Scientific equations are handle with a program called |Expressionist (very WYSIWYG oriented) from which I cut and paste. On the |other side, I work with peoples pleased with Tex and Latex. | |I am not convinced to switch to Tex or LaTex, for the following reason: | |o In my opinion figures help to understand a subject. |o Tex and LaTex do not handle figures easily, so peoples dont put figures | in their documents. (This is what I see) |o Sometimes a figure may equal a thousand of words :-) | Yes, figures are important. And TeXtures (Mac Version of TeX) does handle figures well. Probably easier than Word. ghe@mist.cs.orst.edu
koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) (03/03/90)
Mark Up Systems vs. WYSI(A)WYG Arguing about the relative merits of markup vs. WYSI(A)WYG is like arguing about the relative merits of microprocessors vs. graphical interfaces. Markup implements text structure in some way; WYSI(A)WYG is a way of handling the process of entering text and mark up. All text processing systems use markup in one form or another; even the lowliest text editor inserts line terminators (with Function Key Enter!). There is no reason why a sophisticated markup system like LaTeX/TeX can't be fronted by a WYSI(A)WYG editor, and there is no reason why a WYSI(A)WYG word processor can't be underlain by a markup system as sophisticated as LaTeX/TeX. It would take a powerful system with a good GUI to pull off true WYSIWYG, though, and that's why the current best approaches to such a thing, e.g., Framemaker or Arbor Text's Publisher, run on Unix work stations. Naturally, on the character-based screen of a DOS system sans GUI there is no way that you're going to get "true" WYSIWYG. You're really working with a continuously refreshed dvi2ASCII window - call it "what you see is an iconic representation of what you'll get." In spite of its limitations, this is vastly superior to wrestling with a mixture of markup and unformatted text. I cannot conceive how seeing one's text maintained in some nice approximation of the final result could be distracting. Is it distracting to see one's code indented suitably while composing it? Is it less distracting to be continually reorganizing the text "by hand" into some readable form as you enter it? It seems, therefore, that so-called WYSIWYG is really just a friendly editing environment. Although current ideas of such an environment seem to be based on obtaining near perfect representation of the final result, while retaining access to the logical structure, it isn't clear that representational exactitude is essential. At any rate it is almost never achieved, and most people are still satisfied with the results. The real opposition between LaTeX/TeX and most "word processors" is that the former have paid special attention to detailed control of formatting (TeX) or to abstracting the formatting process in favor of the structuring process (LaTeX and SGML), i.e., to perfection of markup systems, while the latter have devoted their attention to perfecting the user interface. The ideal tool would have the advantages of both approaches! Current "WYSIWYG" word processors are indeed system specific. This is partly system specificity in the sense that a dvi2X filter is X specific, or that the keyboard of your terminal is system specific. Since the editing view is provided by something like that filter, it is naturally device dependent. Actually, most DOS word processors are amazingly flexible in terms of what hardware they will work with, because DOS is amazingly flexible as to what I/O devices it will support. This kind of system specificity is inherent in the I/O process. There is, however, a real problem in word processors with system-specificity in terms of proprietary markup systems. Each word processor uses its own, or, at least, there are not many cases of shared systems. And, of course, these proprietary systems are not as powerful as the system embedded in, e.g., LaTeX/TeX, though some of the best of them are much better than LaTeX/TeX users seem to realize; automatic numbering of logical units is here today, for example, not something vaguely hoped for. It would be nice if there were only one or two universal, non-proprietary markup systems in use, so that the difference between word processors was merely a matter of the details of the interface between the author and the markup system, or what details of the markup system were supported in the editor, etc. Maybe someday. By the way, several DOS word processors/publishers have Unix versions (or vice versa)! This is all personal opinion, and does not reflect in any way the opinions or policies of my employer.
bochner@lange.harvard.edu (Harry Bochner) (03/03/90)
Two more tidbits for the discussion: 1) Several programmers have commented that they would rather work at the 'high' level of a markup language; also some people have said they find the formatting information distracting when they're writing. So I'd like to express my esthetic preference: I'm a programmer, and when writing I MUCH prefer any WYSIWYG, even a primitive one, to a mark up language. To my taste the markup commands are much more distracting. 2) I think the real competition to TeX may come not from the PC level word processing market, but the new workstation level packages. We've been trying out FrameMaker here, and I'm very impressed with it. The problem with it for our environment is that you need a graphics console to run it, and many of our TeX users have nothing but an ascii terminal. For much of what's done here the big advantage of TeX is that you can run it from a terminal. -- Harry Bochner bochner@endor.harvard.edu
ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) (03/03/90)
Markup vs WYSIWYG seems to be one of those personal choices, like command line interfaces vs iconic interfaces. I suspect it correlates with personalities that like abstraction vs personalities that like demonstration. Find the system you are comfortable with and use that. To some extent it also depends on what you want to do. If you design lots of one page flyers as opposed to writing a lot of boilerplate layout papers, your choice might be different. Let me throw in a few definitely biased opinions. Equation editors are claimed to be easier to use than typing in sub and superscripts. Maybe the learning curve is faster. Maybe it's easier for complex arrays. I find wandering through a maze of walking menus or trying to remember the accelerator key bindings no easier than just typing the ^s and _s myself. Abstraction is useful. I changed the appearance of a logo a couple of times. Because I consistently used a macro, all I had to do was redefine the macro. But this takes foresight. Seeing what you are going to get is a warm feeling, but I have often generated output I never saw in its final form until I printed it, no not even previewed and it came out just fine. As for letters, I just take an old letter, rip out the guts, change the addresses and salutations and bingo, another letter. I dislike being dependent on having a graphics screen to use WYSISYG editors. I often type in text on a modem line. I keep my lines justified but a lot of people don't bother and it doesn't matter to TeX. Just a fetish of mine. On the other hand I use WYSIWYG picture editors. I would also love to have a visual layout editor that turns out TeX declarations. Reports of the impending death of markup due to WYSIWYG are greatly exaggerated. For portable documents, automatically generated text, e.g. from databases, markup is hard to beat. There is money to be made producing tools to get the job done using the best combination of tools. Like that layout editor, hint, hint. :-)
frost@sdsu.edu (Richard Frost) (03/03/90)
In article <1990Mar3.012140.4928@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu writes: >Markup vs WYSIWYG seems to be one of those personal choices, like >command line interfaces vs iconic interfaces. I suspect it correlates >with personalities that like abstraction vs personalities that like >demonstration. Find the system you are comfortable with and use that. Actually I have very little choice in the matter. The only affordable computing alternative for me is a graphics terminal, with modem and printer. For computing engines I use a Celerity and Cray YMP. The Cray runs a version of system V and the Celerity BSD 4.3 (both Unix). I could have a very stressful life and drive to University to use a Mac for every word processing task, or just do it at home at a more leasurely pace with all the creature comforts. Now like some of you, I was initiated to computing in the early 70's, when the only word-processor available was a markup system--namely runnoff. So Tex doesn't appear bad to me and likewise WYSIWYG is a fantastic improvement. But I have seen only two products for the Word 1 for WP that will approximate the features of BibTex. This is vital to me and as yet, nothing I've seen is good enough to justify a new Workstation at home. P.S. No! I don't use the Cray for wordprocessing !! :-) -- * ** * * *** * * * ** * is **** * it ** * * random ** ? * ********* Richard Frost Mathematical Sciences, SDSU CA 92182 Internet: frost@sdsu.edu
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (03/04/90)
It is evident to me that in ten years systems like troff & teX will
be historical vapor. Clearly, in ten years ascii terminals will no
longer exist (already the cost savings doesn't justify them), and the
primitive glass-TTY software will cease to exist, just like primitive
line editors ceased to exist when teletypes went the way of the dodo
bird.
However, we are living in the present, and presently I would say the
best, most portable, most up-and-coming document preparation system
has to be TeX (& LaTeX). If you want to write a book, if you want to
write good math, if you want to have the best aesthetic output, then
go with TeX. Troff is a direct descendent of perhaps THE FIRST word
processor (runoff, 1966?), and frankly, it shows it age (through many
bugs, phototypesetter dependencies, and through the primitive
functionality and excessively painful syntax of pic).
Sometime in the future, you should consider a WYSWYG system, but
high-precision software hasn't been written for PC's. I use a
macintosh & MS-Word 4.0. Word is still not smart enough to fully
justify my mathematics & italics on a laser-printed line (with
fractional widths). This is bad news. But I like the WYSWYG, and
can't beat the *cheap* macintosh illustration tools (Canvas, MacDraw,
MacDraw II, MacPaint) -- and don't even need the sophisticated ones
(illustrater, freehand, etc). MS-Word equations work, and are
readable, and if I don't like them, I've only myself to blame, since
the mac can intermingle editable output in a way that is impossible
with TeX, troff, or any other system. If you don't like the way your
software displays (figures, equations, graphs, tables, etc), just get
an add-on package, create the info separately and paste it into your
document. Your word processor only has to do a good job on text.
Some misconceptions have been floating around:
1. WYSWYG = no good for large documents (look at latest packages)
2. WYSWYG = distraction (the clock is a distraction)
3. WYSWYG = assembly, troff/TeX = compiler (1% of users are programmers)
By the way, the mac has a nice public-domain program (LAgraphix) that
lets you edit TeX pictures in WYSWYG form (someone asked about this).
Don W. Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesolender@cs.colostate.edu (Kurt Olender) (03/16/90)
Paul De Bra writes: > Let's assume that LaTeX needs approx 5 MIP per page. That means that processing > a 100 page document takes 500 MIP. A not too experienced typist easily types > 2 or 3 characters per second, meaning that you need 1000 ro 1500 MIPS to > provide true WYSIWYG performance for LaTeX. (This assumes that one does not > use any tricks to avoid reprocessing the whole document for every character > that is entered/deleted/changed. > I doubt that a Cray will do. > Paul. > (debra@research.att.com) I think you've got your math mixed up. 1 page = 60 lines x 60 characters/line = 3600 characters (roughly) 1 typist at 3 chars/sec takes 1200 seconds, or 20 minutes to type a page. 1 typist at 100 wpm (~10 cps) takes 6 minutes to type a page. I think that you can write a LaTeX and a display tool that can process a page in less than 6 minutes. It seems to take only about 1 or 2 seconds for LaTeX and perhaps at most 3 seconds for texsun (per page) on my Sun 3/50, admittedly not the most powerful thing around.