ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (07/05/88)
Which is better to use, the original TeX82 in pascal from Stanford, or
ctex2.9?
By better, i mean things like speed, public domain driver support, stability
(bugs per square inch ;'}), etc.
ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs,
ken@gatech.edu inhp4, masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl,
ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet unmvax, ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
soon to be open: ...!gatech!spooge!ken (finally ;'})ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) (07/05/88)
|Which is better to use, the original TeX82 in pascal from Stanford, or |ctex2.9? | |By better, i mean things like speed, public domain driver support, stability |(bugs per square inch ;'}), etc. All TeXs generate the same DVI format so a driver will work equally well (or badly) with any TeX. Unix TeX now comes with WEB to C so Pascal is no longer needed. It passes the trip test on the most common Unix boxes. It is about 20% faster than the Pascal version. The advantage of this version is that it can track bug fixes in the original WEB code as and when Knuth announces them. Ctex 2.9 is claimed to pass the trip test and I could be convinced it does on the original machine, a PC. However I couldn't get it to pass trip on my Sun. Whenever TeX is ported to a new machine, it must be validated by the trip test, because the test not only exercises the particular translation but also the compiler system. Ken
mark@motcoh.UUCP (Mark Mills) (07/05/88)
In article <11071@sol.ARPA> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: >|Which is better to use, the original TeX82 in pascal from Stanford, or >|ctex2.9? What's the best way to obtain ctex2.9? -- Live: Mark Mills, Motorola Microcomputer Division Inc. Uucp: mark@motcoh.UUCP USPS: 6563 Worthington-Galena Rd. Worthington, OH. 43085 Tel: (614) 846-9460 Disclaimer: My views are personal.
rusty@velveeta.berkeley.edu (rusty wright) (07/06/88)
The requirement for a tex port to pass the trip test cannot be overemphasized. It may not be important to everyone, but I derive great comfort knowing that I can upgrade to the latest version by just ftp'ing to stanford to get the new .web file and just changing the version number in the .ch file and uttering "make". One thing that Ken did forget to mention is that with the web2c setup you not only get tex82 in C but you also get Metafont and a lot (not all [yet]) of the TeX and Metafont support programs in C. -------------------------------------- rusty c. wright rusty@cartan.berkeley.edu ucbvax!cartan!rusty
kwok@iris.ucdavis.edu (Conrad Kwok) (07/07/88)
In article <11071@sol.ARPA> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: > >Unix TeX now comes with WEB to C so Pascal is no longer needed. It >passes the trip test on the most common Unix boxes. It is about 20% >faster than the Pascal version. The advantage of this version is that >it can track bug fixes in the original WEB code as and when Knuth >announces them. I compile common tex 2.9 using "gcc -O". That is 40% faster and 20% smaller than the PASCAL version of tex. I didn't try it on the WEB2C version. But I think the result would be similar. Another advantages of using common TeX 2.9 is that they have a BIG and BIGG version. BIGG version has a memory size about five times of TeX. --Conrad internet: kwok@iris.ucdavis.edu csnet : kwok@ucd.csnet csnet : kwok%iris.ucdavis.edu@csnet.relay uucp : {ucbvax, uunet, ... }!ucdavis!iris!kwok
ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap(probably)) (07/07/88)
|I compile common tex 2.9 using "gcc -O". That is 40% faster and |20% smaller than the PASCAL version of tex. I didn't try it on |the WEB2C version. But I think the result would be similar. I think I would take correctness over any small gain in speed. |Another advantages of using common TeX 2.9 is that they have a |BIG and BIGG version. BIGG version has a memory size about five |times of TeX. I have a changefile (originally from Pierre Mackay) for a big version of TeX in C, with 256kb of memorywords and it can easily be edited for more. Without preloading, which wins very little in speed, according to my tests, the big-tex text (code) size is actually *smaller* than the normal version because most short/long conversions have been eliminated. The virtex binary is only 180k. The bss area is allocated from VM anyway. It runs just as fast as the normal version. Tests indicate no reason not to install just one, non-preloaded, big version of TeX. No more out of memory messages (until the users get overambitious again, anyway). No need for separate tex, latex and slitex binaries either. There is just initex and virtex now. Ken PS: Don't ask me for the changefile. It is (will be) in the distribution.