xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Xiaofei Wang) (02/06/91)
Would that be a good idea to remove LaTeX related discussions from ``comp.text.TeX'' to ``comp.text.LaTeX''? As far as code writing is concerned, Plain TeX users and LaTeX users don't usually talk to each other. Few people use both Plain TeX and LaTeX. I am a Plain TeX user and not interested in how to do this and that in LaTeX. And I presume that a LaTeX user is not interested in how to do this and that in Plain TeX. Separation of LaTeX will do good for Plain TeX people as well as LaTeX people. LaTeX is designed the way as it is, it is inappropriate and a waste of time to ask it to do things it is not designed to do. In that case, I would think one should write one's own macro based on *original* TeX. [It seems to me that everything LaTeX can do Plain TeX can but not the opposite.] I think the One of the author [Karl Berry?] of eplain.tex say the same thing in the readme file I quoted below: ``If you think of additional features that would be useful, or extensions to existing ones, let me know. I am interested in providing macros that support formatting, not ones which do the formatting. (Which is to say, I am not planning on writing another LaTeX; I will not include, say, a macro to produce a chapter heading.)'' By the way, eplain is a very nice set of macros that every one should be using. It is available from labrea.stanford.edu [36.8.0.47] might under the dir of karl_berry ics.uci.edu [128.195.1.1] \TeX\eplain june.cs.washington.edu [128.95.1.4] Also the Book by the eplain authors ``TeX for the Impatient'' is very nice book to have. Knuth's Book is the original source of info, but it seems that the info is scattered around in the book. Every time when I try to find something, I have to locate the page numberS from the index and go through different sections of the Book. The ``TeX for the Impatient'' put related topics together: Commands for composing paragraphs Commands for composing pages Commands for composing horizontal and vertical modes Just to quote just a few chapters. Karl's address is ``karl@cs.umb.edu'' if you need to talk to him. And Paul Abrahams [First author]'s addresses : Paul Abrahams 214 River Road Deerfield, MA 01342 Abrahams%Wayne-MTS@um.cc.umich.edu According to the Book ``TeX for the impatient''.
spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sebastian Rahtz) (02/07/91)
In article <58132@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Xiaofei Wang) writes:
As far as code writing is concerned, Plain TeX users and LaTeX users
don't usually talk to each other. Few people use both Plain TeX and
LaTeX.
oh, come on! LaTeX is an extension (more or less) of Plain TeX. I
don't use the `tex' command per se more than once a month, but I do
read the stuff people post when they are discussing macro-writing
problems. we are *not* in two different camps
time to ask it to do things it is not designed to do. In that case, I
would think one should write one's own macro based on *original* TeX.
people keep on about plain TeX as if it were the word of God. It
isn't. Knuth wrote a document compiler, and offered a sample set of
macros to show how to do it, and for his own purposes. Lamport used
Knuth's code and extended it. Being `original' ie `first' doesnt mean `best'
sebastian
--
Sebastian Rahtz S.Rahtz@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET)
Computer Science S.Rahtz@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bitnet)
Southampton S09 5NH, UK S.Rahtz@sot-ecs.uucp (uucp)Damian.Cugley@prg.ox.ac.uk (Damian Cugley) (02/07/91)
From: Xiaofei Wang <xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu> Message-Id: <58132@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> > Would that be a good idea to remove LaTeX related discussions from > ``comp.text.TeX'' to ``comp.text.LaTeX''? Yes!! Sounds doubleplusgood to me. (The names would have to be downcased.) An alternative would be to always have `LaTeX' in the subject line when talking about problems with LaTeX... > As far as code writing is concerned, Plain TeX users and LaTeX users > don't usually talk to each other. Few people use both Plain TeX and > LaTeX. I am a Plain TeX user and not interested in how to do this and > that in LaTeX. I feel the same -- normally I use plain TeX, or rather macro packages of my own devising. Partly because, by the nature of TeX code, trying to get someone else's macros to work is so much hassle it's just as easy to write my own. (The number of times I was forced to read the LaTeX source to get around holes in the manual...!) > LaTeX is designed the way as it is, it is inappropriate and a waste of > time to ask it to do things it is not designed to do. In that case, I > would think one should write one's own macro based on *original* TeX. I used LaTeX to do some maths but ended up writing an enormous so-called style file to get the things I wanted. LaTeX has many holes that can only be patched with arcane plain-TeX knowledge or non-standard style files full of same. (A lot of this should have been avoided through "hooks" allowing the user to insert code into standard macros without rewriting them.) //- Damian Cugley ----\ /--- Oxford University Computing Laboratory, -\ || pdc@prg.ox.ac.uk || \--- 11 Keble Rd, Oxford, UK OX1 3QD --------/ || pdc@uk.ac.ox.prg || \--------------------// "His feet are the wrong size for his shoes."
ruberman@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (02/07/91)
I strongly disagree with the idea of separating LaTeX and TeX discussion groups. In fact, although I use LaTeX, I tend to use TeX for writing macros since there are many things which are direct to do in TeX but are quite awkward to write in LaTeX. On the other hand, I'm unwilling to give up the theorem numbering and labelling capabilities of LaTeX. So I at least am interested in discussions from both sides of the fence and would vote to keep the two together. Daniel Ruberman ruberman@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
adrian@mti.mti.com (Adrian McCarthy) (02/08/91)
In article <58132@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Xiaofei Wang) writes: >Would that be a good idea to remove LaTeX related discussions from >``comp.text.TeX'' to ``comp.text.LaTeX''? > >As far as code writing is concerned, Plain TeX users and LaTeX users >don't usually talk to each other. Few people use both Plain TeX and >LaTeX. Really? I (and several other people I know) work in both plain TeX and LaTeX regularly. When I create a new set of plain TeX macros, I usually document them with LaTeX. I have also posted general queries to this group on ``how do I do this?'' and get a mixed bag of results from *both* plain TeX and LaTeX users. I value this kind of response because it lets me evaluate different approaches (using plain TeX macros vs. writing a LaTeX style file). It also gives me insights on what's right and what's wrong with the LaTeX design philosophy that I can apply when creating my own macro packages. I'm afraid that if TeX and LaTeX were split into two groups, there would just be a lot of cross posting. And some irregular readers, unaware of the distinction between the groups are going to post to the wrong one. In other words, I really don't think it'll improve the bandwidth utilization. Is it possible to use a kill file to eliminate all messages with ``LaTeX'' in the header? It seems to me that nearly all of the strictly LaTeX questions usually have this in the subject line. Perhaps you could also add a few other keywords like ``documentstyle''. This will probably reduce the LaTeX traffic you see as much as splitting the group. How about AMS-TeX? And all these other tools and font requests that appear here? Should we split those into separate groups too? Where do DVI-driver questions and information belong? How about spelling checkers which understand how to deal with TeX and LaTeX? Personally, I'm not much interested in typesetting math or (with rare exception) locating some exotic font. Aid. (adrian@gonzo.mti.com)
moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss) (02/08/91)
There is enough overlap that I'd end up reading both groups, etc. Consider, for example, the issues of dvips, specials, fonts, PostScript, MF, ..... But since I'd read both, I guess I don't care too much if others want it split .... -- J. Eliot B. Moss, Assistant Professor Department of Computer and Information Science Lederle Graduate Research Center University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss@cs.umass.edu
raymond@math.berkeley.edu (Raymond Chen) (02/09/91)
In article <58132@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, xiaofei@acsu (Xiaofei Wang) writes: >Would that be a good idea to remove LaTeX related discussions from >``comp.text.TeX'' to ``comp.text.LaTeX''? I think this is a drasTeX measure. This is like deciding to split rec.autos into rec.autos.manual and rec.autos.automatic. There are too many people interested in both sides and there is too much overlap for the split to be worthwhile. If such a split were undertaken, I forsee rampant cross-posting, which will defeat the purpose of the split anyway. Besides, we're supposed to be one big happy family. The REAL enemy is troff! (No! Wait! I didn't really say that!) :-) (Honest, some of my best friends use troff...)
steve@Advansoft.COM (Steve Savitzky) (02/09/91)
Terrible idea. Most of the topics in comp.text.tex are not specific to either LaTeX or Plain--they include such things as: o Metafont o Device drivers o the latest version of TeX for the XXX machine, or problems compiling TeX on XXX, or the like o general questions about macros, input, output, running TeX, etc. which usually apply to both versions. LaTeX is, after all, an extension of Plain TeX. I mostly use LaTeX, because it gives me a lot of useful stuff I would otherwise have to write myself, but that doesn't keep me from writing my own macro packages to extend it, or using plain TeX when I have to. -- \ --Steve Savitzky-- \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \ REAL hackers use an AXE! \ \ steve@advansoft.COM \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ #include<disclaimer.h> \ \ arc!steve@apple.COM \ Santa Clara, CA 95954 \ 408-727-3357 \ \__ steve@arc.UUCP _________________________________________________________
cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) (02/10/91)
In article <58132@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Xiaofei Wang) writes: >Few people use both Plain TeX and LaTeX. I am a Plain TeX user and not >interested in how to do this and that in LaTeX. And I presume that a LaTeX >user is not interested in how qto do this and that in Plain TeX. I think you presume wrong. I use LaTeX almost exclusively, because it makes so many things less messy, but I often have to drop down into plain TeX to do things not covered by LaTeX. LaTeX is, after all, more or less a superset of plain TeX. >Separation of LaTeX will do good for Plain TeX people as well as LaTeX >people. It certainly won't do the LaTeX people any good. The answer to a sticky LaTeX problem is generally in plain TeX, so I predict a lot of cross-posting from there, to pick up on the TeX experts. Also, all LaTeX users will have to read the TeX group as well, to keep up on MF, device drivers, fonts, etc. >LaTeX is designed the way as it is, it is inappropriate and a waste of time >to ask it to do things it is not designed to do. In that case, I would think >one should write one's own macro based on *original* TeX. But that doesn't mean you have to ditch LaTeX and re-write all the things it was doing right for you. >[It seems to me that everything LaTeX can do Plain TeX can but not the >opposite.] Of course, since LaTeX is written in TeX. Rob -- UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!warwick!cudcv PHONE: +44 203 523037 JANET: cudcv@uk.ac.warwick INET: cudcv@warwick.ac.uk Rob McMahon, Computing Services, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, England
beck@bongo.cs.cornell.edu (Micah Beck) (02/10/91)
steve@Advansoft.COM (Steve Savitzky) writes: >Terrible idea. Most of the topics in comp.text.tex are not specific >to either LaTeX or Plain--they include such things as: >o Metafont >o Device drivers >o the latest version of TeX for the XXX machine, or problems compiling > TeX on XXX, or the like >o general questions about macros, input, output, running TeX, etc. > which usually apply to both versions. >LaTeX is, after all, an extension of Plain TeX. Is this true? Seems to me that there is stuff which works on Plain TeX but not on LaTeX. Alternate idea: introduce comp.text.tex.la and perhaps comp.text.tex.plain, dealing with issues specific to those macro packages. Micah Beck Cornell CS Dept.
eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) (02/10/91)
beck@bongo.cs.cornell.edu (Micah Beck) writes: >steve@Advansoft.COM (Steve Savitzky) writes: >>Terrible idea. Most of the topics in comp.text.tex are not specific >>to either LaTeX or Plain--they include such things as: Agree. >Alternate idea: introduce comp.text.tex.la and perhaps comp.text.tex.plain, >dealing with issues specific to those macro packages. See above argument. I've heard this suggestion before, and it is usually the complaint of plain TeX users who don't want to hear about LaTeX. On the other hand, most LaTeX users have to know (sometimes quite a lot) about `pure' TeX, what is usually qualified as `plain' TeX, but incorrectly. The only viable proposal for separation would be to move supersets of pure TeX (or plain for that matter, LaTeX and just about every package I know is a superset of plain) to a subgroup. But then, I'm tired of all these people asking: - where do I get TeX for the XYZ computer - how do I use Postscript - who has a modedef for the ABC (read: ln03) printer Shouldn't we have separate groups for all of that? Let's just stick together, the amount of messages is not that large, and we can all learn from each other. V.
sean@castle.ed.ac.uk (S Matthews) (02/10/91)
eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes: >Let's just stick together, the amount of messages is not >that large, and we can all learn from each other. >V. This puts it perfectly. I sometimes think might be nice would be a comp.text.tex.sources, but few people seem to post sources. Maybe a group would encourage them? And, apart from that, I am happy to deal with the amount that is posted. (So I throw away most of it, but at least I know what I am throwing away, if you split the groups then probably I will not bother to read the one with less stuff in it that I am interested in, missing some stuff, and not seeing questions that I might be able to answer.) Sean
maschler@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL (MICHAEL MASCHLER) (02/11/91)
In article <DAMIAN.CUGLEY.91Feb7112825@msc2.prg.ox.ac.uk>, Damian.Cugley@prg.ox.ac.uk (Damian Cugley) writes... >From: Xiaofei Wang <xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu> >Message-Id: <58132@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> > >> Would that be a good idea to remove LaTeX related discussions from >> ``comp.text.TeX'' to ``comp.text.LaTeX''? > .. > >> LaTeX is designed the way as it is, it is inappropriate and a waste of >> time to ask it to do things it is not designed to do. In that case, I >> would think one should write one's own macro based on *original* TeX. > >I used LaTeX to do some maths but ended up writing an enormous so-called >style file to get the things I wanted. LaTeX has many holes that can >only be patched with arcane plain-TeX knowledge or non-standard style >files full of same. (A lot of this should have been avoided through >"hooks" allowing the user to insert code into standard macros without >rewriting them.) > > > //- Damian Cugley ----\ /--- Oxford University Computing Laboratory, -\ > || pdc@prg.ox.ac.uk || \--- 11 Keble Rd, Oxford, UK OX1 3QD --------/ > || pdc@uk.ac.ox.prg || > \--------------------// "His feet are the wrong size for his shoes." Without expressing any opinion on the merits/drawbacks of Latex, because I never had a chance to study it seriously, I want to point out the existence of a package entitled LamS-TeX, written by Michael Spivak, that adds many LateX features and other features to AMS-TeX. It has the following advantages: 1. It is compatible with plain.tex as well as AMS-TeX (written by the same author). 2. As a consequence of 1., it is quite convenient for typesetting mathematical formulas. 3. I gives the reader a lot of options to devise his own style. 4. It enables relatively easy ways to typeset complicated table, place figures in various places on apage, draw commutative diagrams ands many other features. Michael Maschler One should observe two rules Department of Mathematics in order to succeed in one's career: The Hebrew University Jerusalem, Israel 1. Never reveal to others everything you know.
kurzi@netmbx.UUCP (Dieterich) (02/12/91)
In article <58132@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Xiaofei Wang) writes: >Would that be a good idea to remove LaTeX related discussions from >``comp.text.TeX'' to ``comp.text.LaTeX''? > >Few people use both Plain TeX and >LaTeX. I am a Plain TeX user and not interested in how to do this and >that in LaTeX. And I presume that a LaTeX user is not interested in how >to do this and that in Plain TeX. Separation of LaTeX will do good for >Plain TeX people as well as LaTeX people. > This is a good idea for two reasons: 1. (mentioned above). 2. most users frustrated by otheways of writing (pencil, typewriter, word,...) start with LaTeX. For them it isn't very helpful to become familiar with hints on formatting formula-type x (...) with Tex. While reading this newsgroup I think LaTeX questions (and hints) are more general ones. Tex articles seem to deal with very specialized features of Tex. So the readers of this newsgroup seem to be a very heterogenous group.
sdawalt@cs.wright.edu (Shane Dawalt) (02/12/91)
From article <58132@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, by xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Xiaofei Wang): > Would that be a good idea to remove LaTeX related discussions from > ``comp.text.TeX'' to ``comp.text.LaTeX''? I think it would be a good idea since, as was mentioned, LaTeX and TeX have different methods for doing some similar operation. It might be nice to separate the groups to reduce the twining of message threads which can only be confusing to those involved. > LaTeX is designed the way as it is, it is inappropriate and a waste of > time to ask it to do things it is not designed to do. In that case, I > would think one should write one's own macro based on *original* TeX. > [It seems to me that everything LaTeX can do Plain TeX can but not the > opposite.] Ummm, the idea of LaTeX is to remove the user from the complexity of TeX. Of course TeX can do what LaTeX can do, LaTeX is, after all, a subset of TeX. LaTeX was not built to become a new TeX, but to make common functions easier to use, thus, LaTeX cannot do everything TeX can. On the other hand, LaTeX does allow the user to enter TeX commands if needs arise. I'm not sure how since I don't understand TeX commands to begin with. Shane(); -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the keyboard of: email: sdawalt@cs.wright.edu Shane A. Dawalt --------------------------------------------------------------------------
ef@tools.uucp (Edgar Fuss) (02/13/91)
> Would that be a good idea to remove LaTeX related discussions from > ``comp.text.TeX'' to ``comp.text.LaTeX''? What about comp.text.tex.latex and comp.text.tex.plain?