silber@sbphy.ucsb.edu (04/18/89)
The capabilities of TeX are evident. However, a new user must
stand aghast at the monstrosity called the "TeXBook" . If pedagogy
and teaching competence are required to keep tenure, knuth should be
booted out of stanford! The information in the TexBook which pertains
VITALLY to a particular topic is neither indexable by any normal term,
nor is it even gathered together in a coherent paragraph or section.
TeX is a programming language, right? How come it is so difficult to
look up concepts like variable assignment? Furthermore, when TeX runs,
and comes up with its cute:
? i thought you meant that ot that...
and then you type
?h
and tex answers with something like
"i think it would be nice if you looked on page 256 of the TexBook"
and when you look there, it says "Exercise nil.nil: Show how to do
this (display...) in Tex"
and now you have to go look up an answer to an exercise and ...
..what was the question....? !!!!!!
By the way how might i write a macro which builds a box from
{\obeylines ...text lines...}
and then CENTERS the BOX? its def minus the body would be:
\def\centerparagraph#1#2{
}
where #1 is the text and #2 is {a list of attributes for the boxed,
and "obeylines" text}
????
I gave up after struggling with the DRECKBOOK to try to understand
how arithmetic operations and assignments are conducted in TeX and then
finding that \wd0 of was giving me the value of \hsize (the box
built by \setbox0=\vbox{\obeylines .....text..} has width \hsize?
and not the maximum width of a line in the box...
..i know, i know, i'm impertinent and what i should do is
"read" (read "suffer") the "manual" some more ..............
? i think you left out a } and anyhow you can't do that in horizontal
mode!
................................iwm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Ian Moor) (04/21/89)
In article <1481@hub.ucsb.edu> silber@sbphy.ucsb.edu writes: > The capabilities of TeX are evident. However, a new user must > stand aghast at the monstrosity called the "TeXBook" . I have to agree, I have once or twice tried to find out how to do something in TeX from the book. I suggest you sticj to LaTeX, its easier to use and Leslie Lamport's book is much better in style and ease of use. -- Ian W Moor UUCP: uunet!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!iwm ARPA: iwm@doc.ic.ac.uk JANET: iwm@uk.ac.ic.doc Department of Computing We don't need no documentation, Imperial College. We don't need no source control, 180 Queensgate No dark sarcasm in the boardroom, London SW7 UK. Manager! leave those programmers alone!
bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) (04/25/89)
As a fairly long-time TeX user and 3-year TUG member, I must heartily
concur with your opinion of the TeXBook as a user or training manual;
it is truly awful, and TeX would benefit enormously if somebody would
write a decent book about it.
Anyway, RUN, do not WALK to a book store and pick up a copy of LaTeX:
A Document Preperation System, by Leslie Lamport. Latex is a macro
package for TeX; more importantly, it is described with a book that
you can actually read--with a real reference section in the back!
As for the paragraph centered as the lines occur, you have to use
\halign, not \vbox; or, in LaTeX,
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l}
the first line \\
the second line \\
the third line
\end{tabluar}
\end{center}
. . . if you really want to get fancy, you can div into TeX to make
the end of line character active and \let it equal to \\, but I'm not
sure how worthwhile that is.
Anyway, I felt just as you did--and had, in fact, given up on TeX--when
I found LaTeX and its book. I have since gone through the entire TeXbook,
and done a great deal of LaTeX hacking, but I never would have even been
able to get started without Leslie Lamport's work.
--
-- Brian, the Man from Babble-on. ...!mcnc!rti!sas!bts
--
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part
that isn't thinking isn't thinking of" -- THEY MIGHT BE GIANTScje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) (04/25/89)
In article <1006@sas.UUCP> bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) writes: > Anyway, RUN, do not WALK to a book store and pick up a copy of LaTeX: > A Document Preperation System, by Leslie Lamport. Latex is a macro > package for TeX; more importantly, it is described with a book that > you can actually read--with a real reference section in the back! Well, maybe you can walk, after all... As much as I love LaTeX, I really dislike Lamport's book as a reference manual. My main complaint is the split-personality of the thing: semi-friendly how-to book in the front, technical reference in the back. This would be OK if the technical reference were complete, but it's not. Many's the time I've tried to look something up in it only to be referred to the front part of the book, or have the front part not mention an important (to me, at the time) option. And the index is almost as unhelpful as the TeXbook's index: which of the "main entries" on this topic is actually the one you want? Lamport's done a superb job with programming the package, but I think he should have left the technical documentation to someone who understands technical documentation and how users read and need to read such things. -- Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin, Chris Jarocha-Ernst UUCP: {ames, cbosgd, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje ARPA: JAROCHAERNST@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (04/26/89)
Now three flames of the TeXbook for not being a primer. Knuth's writing is an aquired taste. Perhaps I would have been more bothered by the TeXbook if I were not so familiar with the Art of Computer Programming. The TeXbook is a very good book. It was clearly the right first book to write about TeX. It is a complete reference manual. It is perhaps the best documentation of a complex computer system ever written. That it is not suitable for tyros is not even interesting.
ews@Gregorio.Stanford.EDU (Ed Sznyter) (04/27/89)
In article <1393@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > >Now three flames of the TeXbook for not being a primer. > >Knuth's writing is an aquired taste. Perhaps I would have been more >bothered by the TeXbook if I were not so familiar with the Art of >Computer Programming. The TeXbook is a very good book. It was clearly >the right first book to write about TeX. It is a complete reference >manual. It is perhaps the best documentation of a complex computer >system ever written. That it is not suitable for tyros is not even >interesting. The TeXbook is suitable {\em only} for tyros. It is a gradual introduction to an extremely complex program, written to prompt reading from cover to cover. While complete, the information is sorted by the order of complexity. A reference manual must be designed to allow efficent access to the information; certainly these two styles are at odds in the TeXbook. The LaTeX book is written in the same style as the TeXbook; however, the higher-level abstractions implemented reduce the amount of information to a more manageable form, and the index has less of a shotgun pattern. But this is a function of subject, not style. I've used TeX for 11 years. When I want to know something, I usually end up reading latex.tex or ``TeX: The Program.'' The unsuitability (real or imagined) of the TeXbook is of interest to many people.
north@hector.UUCP (Stephen C. North) (04/27/89)
> That it is not suitable for tyros is not even interesting.
That's not what Knuth says in the preface.
Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus!gary@pbseps.UUCP (Gary Gallaher) (04/27/89)
>> That it is not suitable for tyros is not even interesting. > What is a "tyro"? -- Gary G. Gallaher, 180 New Montgomery St., Room 602, San Francisco, CA, 94105 1 415 545-7590 || UUCP {ames,pyramid,sun,att,bellcore}!pacbell!pbseps!gary
hgcjr@utastro.UUCP (Harold G. Corwin Jr.) (04/28/89)
In article <433@pbseps.UUCP>, gary@pbseps.UUCP (Gary Gallaher) writes: > >> That it is not suitable for tyros is not even interesting. > > > What is a "tyro"? > A beginner. Which reminds me of my reaction to the first comment above (take this as a flame if you want): if there were ANY other way to learn TeX, then I would agree. The simple fact is that I know of no other manual for TeX besides the TeXbook. Like so many others who've written here recently, I took one look at it, put it back on the shelf, and turned to LaTeX. For all its faults, the LaTeX manual is much easier for beginners to get something out of than the TeXbook. Don't forget, too, that TeX is a TYPESETTING system. Most of us aren't typesetters, and don't want to be. The fact that TeX has been widely adopted by scientists and mathematicians is due to its flexibility, the large number of operating systems that support it, and the probability that most of the people using it have never had the chance to use an easier typesetting system (read "technical word processor" if you wish). The analogy to programming also seems appropriate to me: write some source code (a document with formatting commands in it), run it through a compiler (TeX), look at the output, and go through the loop until it's right. This is a familiar way of working for most people of my generation (mid-forties), and TeX fits right into our notions of how to work with computers. But easy? TeX? No way. Made any easier using the TeXbook? Only if your job is typesetting and you're being paid to wade through a jungle of lions and dangerous curves. End of flame. OK, that's off my chest. Back to work. Harold Corwin ---------------- -- Harold G. Corwin, Jr. UUCP: {backbonesite}!{noao,cs.utexas.edu}!utastro!hgcjr Internet: hgcjr@astro.as.utexas.edu MaBell: 512-471-7463 Astronomy Dept., RLM 15.308, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-1083
cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) (04/28/89)
In article <3847@utastro.UUCP> hgcjr@utastro.UUCP (Harold G. Corwin Jr.) writes: > For all its faults, the LaTeX manual is much easier for beginners to get > something out of than the TeXbook. Full agreement here. > Don't forget, too, that TeX is a TYPESETTING system. Most of us > aren't typesetters, and don't want to be. ... But easy? > TeX? No way. Made any easier using the TeXbook? Only if your job > is typesetting and you're being paid to wade through a jungle of > lions and dangerous curves. End of flame. But I think that's precisely why LaTeX was created. It's not necessary for anyone who wants to typeset their technical paper to learn raw TeX. Here at Rutgers, my job *is* to wade through the jungle of lions and dangerous curves. I try to direct people interested in TeX to LaTeX instead. When a user has a need that LaTeX seemingly can't handle, I either find a way to get LaTeX to do it or I dig out the TeXbook. Any site that uses TeX ought to have a similar support person (I hesitate to call myself a "TeX guru") so that users like Harold can pay attention to advances in astronomy instead of advances in TeX. But if you're hooked on TeX and *want* to Know All, it's misplaced to complain that the technical reference isn't suitable for beginners. Beginners belong with LaTeX. -- Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin, Chris Jarocha-Ernst UUCP: {ames, cbosgd, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje ARPA: JAROCHAERNST@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU
hgcjr@utastro.UUCP (Harold G. Corwin Jr.) (04/29/89)
In article <Apr.28.09.43.12.1989.28020@elbereth.rutgers.edu>, cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) writes: | But I think that's precisely why LaTeX was created. It's not necessary for | anyone who wants to typeset their technical paper to learn raw TeX. | ... | But if you're hooked on TeX and *want* to Know All, it's misplaced to complain | that the technical reference isn't suitable for beginners. Beginners belong | with LaTeX. | | Chris Jarocha-Ernst I agree completely about LaTeX. I've typeset a book using LaTeX, and found it manageable. I did have to make occasional forays into the jungle to find TeX stuff that I couldn't easily get LaTeX to do. Which brings me back to my (and the other folk's) point: (flame back on) how in the world are we supposed to learn "All" from the TeXbook? The thing is a mess, even as a technical reference manual (flame off). Yes, persistence pays off in the end, and I can use the TeXbook to get what I need (usually). (flame) But oh, my; oh, my. The time it takes; little is clear, and what is is so scattered around .... phooey. You get the idea. (flame off) Question: is there an alternative to the TeXbook? If so, I'd like to know who publishes it and how I can order it. DON'T send e-mail -- broadcast it far and wide. A LOT of us want to know. Many thanks! Harold Corwin -- Harold G. Corwin, Jr. UUCP: {backbonesite}!{noao,cs.utexas.edu}!utastro!hgcjr Internet: hgcjr@astro.as.utexas.edu MaBell: 512-471-7463 Astronomy Dept., RLM 15.308, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-1083
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (04/30/89)
In article <3847@utastro.UUCP> hgcjr@utastro.UUCP (Harold G. Corwin Jr.) writes: > But easy? TeX? No way. Made any easier using the TeXbook? Only if > your job is typesetting and you're being paid to wade through a jungle > of lions and dangerous curves. End of flame. Unless you write mathematics. Then chapters 16--19 of the {\TeX}book are {\it must\/} reading. Having digested them, the mathematics you typeset yourself will be better than that set by all but a handful of publishing houses. The \LaTeX\ manual is simply insufficient. It doesn't even cover putting thin spaces in such simple formulas as \[ {\cal F} = \{\, f_\theta : \theta \in \Theta \,\} \] and \[ \int f \, d\mu \] or the double quad space in \[ \theta_i \le \theta_{i+1}, \qquad i = 1, \ldots, n-1. \] No reason why it should of course. You also have to read the {\TeX}book if you want to get into modifying what \LaTeX\ does. I agree with Lamport that this is almost always a bad idea unless you are a professional book designer or are forced to make modifications to satisfy some externally imposed requirements, say for a thesis or for submission to a journal. Still most new users have hardly learned what \verb@\begin{document}@ means before they want to modify the whole format. (I did myself, but now I know better). The {\TeX}book shows them how or convinces them to give up.
dak@hpausla.HP.COM (Dave Kruger) (04/30/89)
Charlie Geyer writes: > It (the TeXbook) is perhaps the best documentation of a complex computer > system ever written. ---------- Response (from a technical writer): You must be bloody joking! Dave Kruger ___________________________________________________________________ Hewlett-Packard Australian Software Operation (ASO) //| ___ ___ PO Box 439, Ringwood, Victoria, 3134, AUSTRALIA. // | | | | phone: Inter.+613 8791999, FAX: Inter.+613 8702169 //--| !--| | | // | ___| |___| HP-UX Mail: dak@hpausla.hp.com // HPdesk: Dave Kruger/HPY200/UX ACSnet address: dak@hpausla.oz
bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) (05/03/89)
The problem with the TeXBook is that is suited for a rather limited audience; namely, one that: 1. is starting from scratch 2. has made a firm commitment to learn the system 3. will not need to do any real with it for a few months. It is not surprising that he should write for such an audience; this is precisely what a class of students is like. However, the book is very ill-suited for the usual workplace sitution where the package arrives and you need to do something useful with it yesterday, or where you've been using it with precooked stuff for a long time, and suddently--and immediately you need to do something else. For these, we need: 1. A short primer-- "First Grade TeX" is good here. This one has been done. 2. A task-oriented "how-to" book. I think that Stephan Bechtosheim's "Another Look at TeX" will do well here. I hope it gets printed someday. 3. A reference manual. This *badly* needs to be done. It should have complete descriptions of each command, primitive or plain, along with all relavent information, including what parameters it can take, its interaction with other commands, and so on. Some standard template should be used for each, and they should cross-reference other commands you are likely to use in conjunction with it. At the beginning should be a short task-oriented section which points you at the commands (eg, "table": see \halign, \valign). It is the third whose lack is most sorely felt. While by no means meeting all of the criteria, the LaTeX manual's section C is the closest I've seen in the TeX world, and the primary reason I recommend LaTeX over plain TeX. -- -- Brian, the Man from Babble-on. ...!mcnc!rti!sas!bts -- "Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of" -- THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS
poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) (05/03/89)
One other thing that a reference manual for TeX, and probably more elementary books, ought to include is a description of TeX as a programming language. A programming language is of course what TeX is, yet nowhere, as far as I can tell, is there a straightforward description of its syntax. When you start writing macros you pretty much have to guess.
bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) (05/10/89)
In article <8787@csli.Stanford.EDU> poser@csli.stanford.edu (Bill Poser) writes: |One other thing that a reference manual for TeX, and probably more |elementary books, ought to include is a description of TeX as a |programming language. A programming language is of course what TeX is, |yet nowhere, as far as I can tell, is there a straightforward description |of its syntax. When you start writing macros you pretty much have to guess. What about chapters 24-26? -- -- Brian, the Man from Babble-on. ...!mcnc!rti!sas!bts -- "Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of" -- THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS