jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) (10/24/89)
One of the professors I admire here teaches a technical writing course
(through the English department). I took it upon myself to try to show
him LaTeX--since he bemoaned the fact that his students couldn't typeset
documents.
He was incredibly negative about all the hieroglyphics required to make
LaTeX function. He worked last year (on sabattical) with a *very*
expensive typesetting package on a dedicated micro-vax. (I'm sorry, but
I forgot the actual name of the other package--it was probably one of the
best on the market.)
Anyway, I wasn't sure I convinced him that it was worth even a single
class session to introduce students to this technical writing tool. He
was pretty adamant that such a program was a "dinosaur" and would no
longer be part of any technical writing shop by the time his students
graduated.
Anyone have any comments?
--
John Campbell ...!arizona!naucse!jdc
CAMPBELL@NAUVAX.bitnet
unix? Sure send me a dozen, all different colors.phd_jacquier@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/24/89)
>One of the professors [...] was incredibly negative about all the >hieroglyphics required to make LaTeX function. >He was adamant that such a program would no >longer be part of any technical writing shop by the time his students >graduated. >Anyone have any comments? The next version of word perfect might prove him right. From what i heard one will be able to type equations and greek characters and see them as you type. Also the preview function in wp is 100 times more convenient than having to stuff your pc with megabytes of obscure pixel files. Incidentally it was possible to do technical writing in word perfect 4.2 by remapping the alt and ctrl characters. Then downloading the characters onto an EGA card ram let you see them as you typed. wp have said that a main feature of 5.1 will be technical typing..let's see.
tla@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (terry.l.anderson) (10/24/89)
From article <1762@naucse.UUCP>, by jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell): > One of the professors I admire here teaches a technical writing course > (through the English department). I took it upon myself to try to show > him LaTeX--since he bemoaned the fact that his students couldn't typeset > documents. > > He was incredibly negative about all the hieroglyphics required to make > LaTeX function. He worked last year (on sabattical) with a *very* > expensive typesetting package on a dedicated micro-vax. (I'm sorry, but > I forgot the actual name of the other package--it was probably one of the > best on the market.) > > Anyway, I wasn't sure I convinced him that it was worth even a single > class session to introduce students to this technical writing tool. He > was pretty adamant that such a program was a "dinosaur" and would no > longer be part of any technical writing shop by the time his students > graduated. > > Anyone have any comments? > -- > John Campbell ...!arizona!naucse!jdc > CAMPBELL@NAUVAX.bitnet > unix? Sure send me a dozen, all different colors. The chief advantage is rule based formatting. No system of which I am aware has close to the power of TeX and LaTeX for precisely defining how a class of documents should be formatted. One of a kind documents or documents with one of a kind special structures will always be easier in a what-you-see-is-what-you-get page layout system. Most good page layout systems allow formatting rules (style sheets, ...) but none offer as much power as TeX/LaTeX. Admittedly this power comes at a price -- the format must be described by a language sufficiently complex to express this incredible flexibility, thus TeX is programming language not simply a set of format option menus. This power is often not used or needed by users and for them a less flexible page layout system may be preferable (if the format they need or are willing to use is available). But when complete control over formatting decisions is needed and many documents using these rules will be produced, I would always choose TeX/LaTeX. Terry L Anderson AT&T Bell Laboratories Warren, NJ tla%bartok@research.att.com
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (10/24/89)
In article <5954@tank.uchicago.edu> phd_jacquier@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >The next version of word perfect might prove him right. >From what i heard one will be able to type equations and greek characters and >see them as you type. Also the preview function in wp is 100 times more >convenient than having to stuff your pc with megabytes of obscure pixel >files. Incidentally it was possible to do technical writing in word perfect >4.2 by remapping the alt and ctrl characters. Unfortunately, a few greek characters won't do it. Automatic equation typesetting is a complicated business. None of the PC based word-processor that attempt it (MS-WORD, Manuscript, Exact) can match the output quality of TeX (or even troff).
perlman@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Gary Perlman) (10/25/89)
In article <1762@naucse.UUCP> jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) writes: >One of the professors I admire here teaches a technical writing course >(through the English department). I took it upon myself to try to show >him LaTeX--since he bemoaned the fact that his students couldn't typeset >documents. I think this is unusual because many teachers of technical writing stress content so much that they ignore form. >He was incredibly negative about all the hieroglyphics required to make >LaTeX function. He worked last year (on sabattical) with a *very* >expensive typesetting package on a dedicated micro-vax. (I'm sorry, but >I forgot the actual name of the other package--it was probably one of the >best on the market.) Like someone else said, WordPerfect is pretty nice, especially for technical writing that does not include too much in the way of equations and the like for which TeX was designed. The ease of use of mass market (millions of users) of systems like WP and MS Word would make them my choice for anything but the most technical of technical writing. Advetising that I saw on WP 5.1, now in beta test, promises ALL greeks and special mathematical characters. MS Word should not be far behind. WP 5.1 also promises tables and mouse support. >Anyway, I wasn't sure I convinced him that it was worth even a single >class session to introduce students to this technical writing tool. He >was pretty adamant that such a program was a "dinosaur" and would no >longer be part of any technical writing shop by the time his students >graduated. There are some things that mass market word processors are not too goo at. Although they do provide "styles" (basically macros), they do not allow all the transformations that you might want from a Turing machine. For example, I still use troff for my lecture notes because it makes it easy for me to have one version with big text for overheads and another version for me, with my personal notes interspersed. The technical help people at WordPerfect had trouble understanding why I would want to have an "invisible" display attribute. Still, WP does 95 percent of what I want for most technical writing at 1/10th of the effort, and WP is an improving system, while systems like troff and TeX, which have a far smaller market, are stangnant. I think promoting LATeX in a writing class would direct student attention away from more important issues. Finally, the support tools like spelling corrector and thesaurus, not to mention a variety of WWB-like tools on PC's and Macs designed to work with WP and Word, make TeX seem like an even poorer choice for educational purposes. If anyone can enlighten me of the educational benefits of a macro language (not the overall flexibility) based on real experiences, I would like to hear about them. My own experiences have been that students get swamped in a hurry in any language, and that they can produce pretty documents in little time with word processors. -- Name: Gary Perlman | Computer and Information Science Department Email: perlman@cis.ohio-state.edu | Ohio State University, 228 Bolz Hall Phone: 614-292-2566 | 2036 Neil Avenue Mall Fax: 614-292-9021 | Columbus, OH 43210-1277 USA
dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (D.A. Hosek) (10/25/89)
In article <71781@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Gary Perlman <perlman@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >I think promoting LATeX in a writing class would direct student attention >away from more important issues. Finally, the support tools like spelling >corrector and thesaurus, not to mention a variety of WWB-like tools on >PC's and Macs designed to work with WP and Word, make TeX seem like an >even poorer choice for educational purposes. Yes, but to discourage LaTeX's use is also a bad choice. It is becoming increasingly common to do things like use a package like WordPerfect to create the TeX or LaTeX input file (see the last issue of TUGboat for an article about this) in a rather friendly manner with all of the advantages of being able to type control-alt-shift-G to get a capital gamma (yeah, that's a _big_ improvement of \Gamma), so the arguments about the spelling corrector etc. don't really wash. Besides, I think that pushing spelling correctors can be just as dangerous as pushing formatting languages (if not more so), since there is a tendency for people with spelling checkers to never read their work (believe me, I've seen it on many an occasion). I find it very annoying to read text that says things like "they never read there work". I think the best course of action would probably be to inform the students that something like LaTeX exists and at least give them a little background information on it. The principles of structured document design are _not_ going to go away: SGML is an international standard, far more techincal journals except TeX/LaTeX/AmSTeX files than MS-Word files, the stuff is there, and it's becoming more and more common. Ignoring LaTeX (or related systems) in a technical writing class would almost be like ignoring computers. -dh -- D.A. Hosek | Internet: DHOSEK@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU | Bitnet: DHOSEK@HMCVAX.BITNET | Phone: 714-920-0655 (I used to be a Mudder, but I got better)
cjoslyn@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) (10/25/89)
In article <1989Oct24.164254.3561@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >In article <5954@tank.uchicago.edu> phd_jacquier@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >>The next version of word perfect might prove him right. > >Unfortunately, a few greek characters won't do it. >Automatic equation typesetting is a complicated business. None of the >PC based word-processor that attempt it (MS-WORD, Manuscript, Exact) >can match the output quality of TeX (or even troff). Perhaps the solution that's obvious to me is problemmatic: WYSIWYG front ends like WP that produce TeX output for most purposes, full TeX still available for those who need more power. WP->TeX converters are coming along, and it is all a matter of time. Also, TeX is ASCII and implementation independent, making it much more universal for email communication etc. It will probably remain the standard intermediate form, perhaps transparently to many users. -- O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large | Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton, cjoslyn@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
smithda@cpsvax.cps.msu.edu (J. Daniel Smith) (10/25/89)
One of the things that I think is so great about TeX/LaTeX is that is
that you are not tied down to your Sun workstation. I can work on a
TeX file at home with a terminal and a modem. Try doing that with
your favorite WYSIWYG package. Also, at most places, workstations are
in much higher demand (and cost more) than a simple terminal.
Another great thing is that TeX files are normal ASCII files. I don't
want to have to encode my document in some interchange format
everytime I want to send it to someone via email. And non-ascii file
formats are just a real pain all the way around as far as I'm
concerned.
TeX is also one of the very few programs of its size (maybe the only one)
that runs on nearly every computer system in use today. This says a
lot about portability of your files and the learning curve when moving
to a new system. With TeX it is possible to send a file to someone
nearly anywhere in the world via email, and chances are decent that
they will be able to get a printed version of that document. Try
doing that with FrameMaker or WordPerfect.
Dan
=========================================================================
J. Daniel Smith Internet: smithda@cpsvax.cps.msu.edu
Michigan State University BITNET: smithdan@msuegr
Usenet: uunet!frith!smithda
I can only assume that a "Do Not File" document is filed in a "Do Not
File" file.
- Senator Frank Church
=========================================================================piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) (10/25/89)
In article <2602@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>, dhosek@jarthur (D.A. Hosek) writes:
Besides, I think that pushing spelling correctors can
`be just as dangerous as pushing formatting languages (if not more so), since
`there is a tendency for people with spelling checkers to never read their
`work (believe me, I've seen it on many an occasion). I find it very
`annoying to read text that says things like "they never read there work".
`going to go away: SGML is an international standard, far more techincal
^^^^^^^^^
this would have been caught by a spelling checker
`journals except TeX/LaTeX/AmSTeX files than MS-Word files, the stuff is
^^^^^^
this one only by reading your work. (I suppose you mean accept)
Or was this just an illustration of your point :=)
--
Piet van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, University of Utrecht
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: +31-30-531806 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl
Telefax: +31-30-513791 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!pietAllen@brownvm.brown.edu (Allen Renear) (10/28/89)
The new "features" being added to popular word processing packages are irrelevant. And, frankly, so is TeX's reasonable pricing :) and implementation on many OSs. What is fundamentally important, in the long run, is this: Unlike all popular style-sheet word processing programs, markup languages such as TeX/LaTeX: A) allow a document's structure to be accurately represented as *tree* of editorial elements, and not misrepresented as a sequence of paragraphs. Nothing else will *ever* do. B) provides a programmable processing/composition language. Sure we need better front ends, ones that are more intuitive, more visually compelling, that rely on recognition rather than recall, etc. etc. But they must retain A) and B) if they are going to be serious improvements. See SoftQuad's Author/Editor for a suggestion of the direction development should take. Or IBM's Quill if it is being demo'd yet. Markup languages are dinosaurs? Tell it to the DoD, OCLC, ALA, European Economic Commission, etc. etc. Oh yeah, to the marines too. No, markup langauges are the correct way to do text. This gives them a considerable advantage over other approaches and will ensure their ultimate dominance. (We make all the arguments, at great length and in great detail, in "Markup Systems and the Future of Scholarly Text Processing," James Coombs, Allen Renear, Steven DeRose,*Communications of the ACM,* Nov. 1987.) Allen Renear, Brown University; allen@brownvm.brown.edu; 401-863-7312 Allen Renear, Computing and Information Services / Brown University / (401) 863-7312 / allen@brownvm.brown.edu