mojh@research.cc.flinders.edu.au (Jorg Hartmann) (11/16/90)
The latest version of the TeXbook available seems to be the sixth printing, March 1986. According to Addison and Wesley in Sydney there is no newer edition, but I have seen people refer to the TeXbook 3.0. Does anybody know whether there is a newer edition available or planned, or were else can one get information about the additions in TeX 3.0 ? Jorg mojh@research.cc.flinders.edu.au phone: (oz-) 08 201 2615 Jorg Hartmann, FIAMS, Flinders Uni of South Australia, Bedford Park SA 5042.
eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) (11/17/90)
mojh@research.cc.flinders.edu.au (Jorg Hartmann) writes: >The latest version of the TeXbook available seems to be the sixth >printing, March 1986. According to Addison and Wesley in Sydney there >is no newer edition, but I have seen people refer to the TeXbook 3.0. Latest hard cover: ninth printing, soft cover: seventeenth and eighteenth. In fact, in the 18th there is one macro in plain.tex that's not in the 17th. Victor.
glenn@suphys.physics.su.OZ.AU (Glenn Geers) (11/17/90)
From article <510@research.cc.flinders.oz>, by mojh@research.cc.flinders.edu.au (Jorg Hartmann): > > The latest version of the TeXbook available seems to be the sixth > printing, March 1986. According to Addison and Wesley in Sydney there > is no newer edition, but I have seen people refer to the TeXbook 3.0. > > Does anybody know whether there is a newer edition available or planned, > or were else can one get information about the additions in TeX 3.0 ? > I've seen the 16th printing in a book store in Sydney. They had know idea when they'd be getting the 17th. A good book that covers the new features is `TeX For The Impatient'. If you want details (can't remember the authors) send me email. Cheers, Glenn glenn@qed.physics.su.oz.au Glenn Geers | "So when it's over, we're back to people. Department of Theoretical Physics | Just to prove that human touch can have The University of Sydney | no equal." Sydney NSW 2006 Australia | - Basia Trzetrzelewska, 'Prime Time TV' -- Glenn Geers | "So when it's over, we're back to people. Department of Theoretical Physics | Just to prove that human touch can have The University of Sydney | no equal." Sydney NSW 2006 Australia | - Basia Trzetrzelewska, 'Prime Time TV'
eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) (11/18/90)
glenn@suphys.physics.su.OZ.AU (Glenn Geers) writes: > A good book that covers the new features is `TeX >For The Impatient'. If you want details (can't remember the authors) send me >email. Yes, it does cover TeX3.0, but no, it's not really a good book. Let me qualify that: it is a good introduction, and it contains a good chapter systematically covering the concepts of TeX, but it's not a hackers' bible. It keeps referring to the TeX book for all the details. And there are quite some errors in it. Rather esoteric, but errors nonetheless. Authors: Abrahams, Hargreaves and Berry. Victor.
teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov17.183845.24090@csrd.uiuc.edu> eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes: >glenn@suphys.physics.su.OZ.AU (Glenn Geers) writes: > >> A good book that covers the new features is `TeX >>For The Impatient'. If you want details (can't remember the authors) send me >>email. > >Yes, it does cover TeX3.0, but no, it's not really a good book. >Let me qualify that: it is a good introduction, and it contains >a good chapter systematically covering the concepts of TeX, >but it's not a hackers' bible. It keeps referring to the TeX book >for all the details. And there are quite some errors in it. >Rather esoteric, but errors nonetheless. I reckon you are being pretty ungenerous. And -- as any reviewer should understand before all else -- you absolutely cannot criticise a work for failing to do something it never set out to do. Would you say Ian Fleming was a dreadful novelist because he never sufficiently clarified Hegel's concept of synthesis? So why should you criticise Abrahams et al. for not writing The TeXbook? In their introduction they explicitly say that is *not* what they are doing; they are precisely trying to write a book that is not a hackers' bible. They say they will refer the reader to the TeXbook for technical details and fuller explanations. How can you criticise them for doing what they set out to do? TeX for the Impatient is an excellent manual to give someone who wants a reliable introduction to TeX, but who isn't ready or willing to tackle the TeXbook. Such people do exist, you know. I consider Doob's "Gentle Intro." in the same class; it is also very good, though different in style and excecution. I think the eplain macros that are documented in TeX for the Impatient are also a very valuable collection. They are easily and freely available from many sites, and they do a lot of the essential jobs that one needs (table of contents, cross referencing, BibTeX support, columns, and so on) on a daily basis, but for which some users may feel that LaTeX is overkill. Someone with the Impatient book, and the eplain macros is in a very strong position to get some real-world typesetting jobs done. And if there are some errors (and *everyone* makes errors, *everyone*), then the thing to do is to correct them quietly and sympathetically, with a copy to the authors. Dominik [I am unable to reply to private email on this topic.]
kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov18.171830.8860@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) writes: >[stuff deleted] >...as any reviewer should understand before all else -- you absolutely cannot >criticise a work for failing to do something it never set out to do. Would >you say Ian Fleming was a dreadful novelist because he never sufficiently >clarified Hegel's concept of synthesis? So why should you criticise Abrahams >et al. for not writing The TeXbook? In their introduction they explicitly >say that is *not* what they are doing; they are precisely trying to write a >book that is not a hackers' bible. They say they will refer the reader to >the TeXbook for technical details and fuller explanations. How can you >criticise them for doing what they set out to do? > Ah, but the second paragraph in the Preface states: "TeX for the Impatient" is intended to serve scientists, mathematicians, and technical typists for whom TeX is a useful tool rather than a primary interest, as well as computer people who have a strong interest in TeX for its own sake. We also intend it to serve both newcomers to TeX and those who are already familiar with TeX. In other words, the authors intend the audience for this book to be just about everyone who uses TeX. Despite this bold claim, they DO realize that their book may not be for all newcomers. In the fourth paragraph they write: If you prefer to start with a carefully guided tour, we recommend that you first ready Knuth's "The TeXbook" (see page 18 for a citation), passing over the "dangerous bend" sections, and then return to this book for additional information and for reference as you start to use TeX. I feel this to be good advice, since many newcomers need a gentler introduction to TeX than "TeX for the Impatient" offers. "The TeXbook" provides such a gentle introduction to TeX. Later on, in paragraph six, the authors state more clearly the purpose of "Tex for the Impatient": The time-consuming part of learning TeX is learning the commands and the concepts underlying their descriptions. Thus, we've devoted most of the book to defining and explaining the commands and the concepts. The main purpose of the book, it seems, is to provide a command reference manual of some sort for TeX. But the authors then say, in paragraph eight: We must caution you that we haven't tried to provide a complete definition of TeX. For that you'll need "The TeXbook", ... So, the book is NOT a COMPLETE reference manual. After having spent some time inside the book, I can say that this book is NOT a good introduction to TeX for the absolute beginner. "The TeXbook" does a better job at that. Nor is it a hackers bible, since it is NOT a complete reference. "The TeXbook" is THE complete reference, but it was NOT written as a reference manual, which makes it a poor reference manual. "TeX for the Impatient" does a much better job at being a reference manual. Indeed, its layout makes it easy to find information quickly. If you are more than just a casual user of of TeX, you may find "TeX for the Immpatient" a useful quick reference. But you will still need to own "The TeXbook" to look for answers to questions not addressed in "TeX for the Impatient". -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Gallagher kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh DSC Communications OR apcihq!apcidfw!digi!kgallagh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) (11/20/90)
teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) writes: >In article <1990Nov17.183845.24090@csrd.uiuc.edu> eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes: >>glenn@suphys.physics.su.OZ.AU (Glenn Geers) writes: >> >>> A good book that covers the new features is `TeX >>>For The Impatient'. If you want details (can't remember the authors) send me >>>email. >> >>Yes, it does cover TeX3.0, but no, it's not really a good book. >>Let me qualify that: it is a good introduction, and it contains >>a good chapter systematically covering the concepts of TeX, >>but it's not a hackers' bible. It keeps referring to the TeX book >>for all the details. And there are quite some errors in it. >>Rather esoteric, but errors nonetheless. >I reckon you are being pretty ungenerous. And -- as any reviewer >should understand before all else -- you absolutely cannot criticise a >work for failing to do something it never set out to do. [...] > So why should you criticise >Abrahams et al. for not writing The TeXbook? In their introduction >they explicitly say that is *not* what they are doing; they are >precisely trying to write a book that is not a hackers' bible. Ah, but read the blurb on the back of the book: `What book would I need now, as an experienced TeX user' (quoted from memory, but not far off). And standing in a bookshop I don't read the whole book, just the back cover and the table of contents. >TeX for the Impatient is an excellent manual to give someone who wants >a reliable introduction to TeX, but who isn't ready or willing to >tackle the TeXbook. Now who's ungenerous. I think I said (see quote above) that it's a good introduction. It can even teach people who have gone through the TeX book some things. >I think the eplain macros that are documented in TeX for the Impatient >are also a very valuable collection. Agreed. I didn't mention them, but they are indeed valuable in giving some of the functionality of LaTeX without forcing people to use LaTeX :-) Pity tho' that the macros are never explained. Probably the main value of them is that even if people cna't write this sort of stuff themselves, they can still modify these macros to their needs once they have a working set. And to name another good point about the book: there is a chapter that explains the infamous error messages of TeX... Victor.