turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (05/27/91)
----- In article <ROLFL.91May27123127@hedda.uio.no> rolfl@hedda.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren) writes: > ... The comparison with WYSIWYG word processors doesn't keep up > because TeX offers you the ability to take any degree of control, > something that word processors can't if you want to keep their > operation user friendly. Word processors have the great > disadvantage that they try to conform to the notion that `"it's > more important that programs are easy to use, than that they > do what they're supposed to do" ... Some might say that programs such as TeX have succombed to the "fallacy" that "it's more important that programs [have the most beautiful output], than that they do what they are supposed to do". What Mr Lindgren fails to note is that different people have different views of what their writing tool is "supposed to do", which is why there are different tools in the first place. I want my writing tool to do several things. (1) Make it easy for me to write and edit papers. (2) Produce good hard copy. (3) Produce a good screen display for reading. (4) Support transmission of papers and paper fragments. In my opinion, TeX and its variants totally fail (1). They are also poor at (3) -- it is more difficult for me to browse a TeX file than it is for me to browse a file under almost any of the Mac word processors. (For the former, I have to learn how to get on the screen a formatted or de-TeX'd image. The first is difficult and the latter is unacceptable. To browse a word processor file on the Mac, I just double click and scroll.) TeX is marginally superior at (2), which is why I originally posed the question. But, in my opninion, the difference is not so great that it makes up for TeX's other deficiencies. It is more complex to describe how TeX both succeeds and fails at the final goal. Supposedly, one should be able to e-mail a TeX file, and the recipient can run it off and see the desired hard copy. The last time someone tried to send me a paper this way, I and a local TeX expert spent an hour searching for the right TeX macro package. Feh! For this purpose, Postscript or other printer image files are *much* better. Send me the .dvi and forget about the TeX! The other problem is that people try to send me, or even post (!), TeX fragments for reading and editing. This is totally useless; I neither read nor write TeX. (Admittedly, word processors do not do well at (4) either. One can send the Postscript output of course, and if the other person uses the same or a compatible word-processor, one can send the original file. In this regard, the choices are the same as for TeX. But one can also send a plain-text version produced by the word processor, which is usually for superior to deTeX'd files, and plain-text fragments are more easily read back into complete papers.) The belief that a writing tool that does (1) well cannot do (2) well is wrong. In many Mac word processors there are frequent format changes that affect global appearance. The better ones do the change in the background, and at some point a reformat "wave" will move down the screen. (I hardly even notice it.) Thus, both global formatting control and WYSIWYG are preserved. (Even for paragraph or page wide spacing calculation, the tool could first display a line by line approximation as text is entered, and then once the paragraph is finished or the cursor is off the page, redisplay any changes to the paragraph or page.) Writing tools are getting better at both (1) and (2). The difference in (2) between tools like TeX and word processors is small. (It took me three years to notice and wonder about it.) Soon, it will be negligible or non-existent. TeX will then disappear, except perhaps as an intermediate form, and, of course, for those die-hards who, having learned this baroque language, will continue in its use. Russell
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (05/28/91)
Without getting into a bragging contest, let me just point out that currently Microsoft Word (and probably other programs) provide almost exactly the same level of fine control over placement and document-wide formatting as TeX and its class. I also want to point out that TeX can be as easy to use as many other word formatters -- a good style can be afforded to documents that simply use the section and chapter headers without any fiddling about. TeX has one unique trick up its sleeve though: the annealing algorithm of balancing spacing on lines. No other word formatter I know of uses this strategy, including all of the commercial formatters for professional book/magazine/news publishers I have seen. It is better at doing the job, but it is also slower, less predictable, and occasionally "blows up." The first reason is the probable one that people don't use it more. My point is simple: if I were writing for a journal, I wouldn't waste my time re-duplicating their TeX formats in Microsoft Word. On the other hand, I'd rather "just type" in Word and not worry about formatting codes most any other day of the week. If you like one kind better, then by all means use it. Freedom of choice is what Macintosh is all about. You can even buy MacTex. bill coderre prefers low-technology to the point of only using monospaced fonts in his posts
rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) (05/28/91)
In article <53375@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: >If you like one kind better, then by all means use it. Freedom of >choice is what Macintosh is all about. You can even buy MacTex. In fact, you can even get OzTeX for free! Robert
evensen@husc9.harvard.edu (Erik Evensen) (05/28/91)
In article <53375@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes:
My point is simple: if I were writing for a journal, I wouldn't waste
my time re-duplicating their TeX formats in Microsoft Word. On the
other hand, I'd rather "just type" in Word and not worry about
formatting codes most any other day of the week.
Very good point; IMHO, MS Word is really bad at typesetting equations
so I use TeX whenever I need to do anything but the most trivial
writing with equations... But I use Word for easy stuff with straight
text. Also BibTeX is really cool.
If you like one kind better, then by all means use it. Freedom of
choice is what Macintosh is all about. You can even buy MacTex.
An even better point! But one can also get OzTeX for free -- it
really works well.
bill coderre
prefers low-technology to the point of only using monospaced fonts in
his posts
--Erik (evensen@husc9.harvard.edu)rolfl@hedda.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren) (05/28/91)
>In article <20225@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: > > Some might say that programs such as TeX have succombed to the > "fallacy" that "it's more important that programs [have the most > beautiful output], than that they do what they are supposed to > do". What Mr Lindgren fails to note is that different people > have different views of what their writing tool is "supposed to > do", which is why there are different tools in the first place. > Not really. My view is rather that word processors have limitaitons that give users false impressions of what is possible to accomplish. Users do things in the most bizarre ways to come around shortcomings that aren't really there. One example is a client who had installed a MacWrite in such a way that the window was wider than the screen. She didn't know that it's possible to resize the window, but succumbed to this as another fact of life. > I want my writing tool to do several things. > > (1) Make it easy for me to write and edit papers. This is where TeX, IMHO, is far superior to any word processor. I write psychological documents. I need citations not to [item number in reference list], but to [author and year]. NO mac word processor supports this citation style. LaTeX even supports different ways to do it (OK, you need to know how to find the style files, but they're there, they work, they're free, ...) > > (2) Produce good hard copy. At my institute, _only_ TeXhackers are allowed to submit single-spaced papers. Word and a LaserWriter are not legible enough. Our professors don't know what LaTeX is, but refer to it as "the programs those maniacs use that make their papers look as if they were pulled out of a scientific journal". > > (3) Produce a good screen display for reading. > OzTeX under system 7 looks quite nice. I agree that it's a pity that you cant get pictures on the screen, but UNIX with a good PostSript previewer saves some printouts. Reading LaTeX text is just a matter og habit. > (4) Support transmission of papers and paper fragments. No problem. Just remember to submit the macros as well. > In my opinion, TeX and its variants totally fail (1). They are > also poor at (3) -- it is more difficult for me to browse a TeX > file than it is for me to browse a file under almost any of the > Mac word processors. I don't understand this. Text is text. I need the screen for layout previewing, not for proofreading. I use paper printouts for proofreading. I don't want my eyes blasted out before I'm 25. > > Writing tools are getting better at both (1) and (2). The > difference in (2) between tools like TeX and word processors is > small. (It took me three years to notice and wonder about it.) > Soon, it will be negligible or non-existent. TeX will then > disappear, except perhaps as an intermediate form, and, of > course, for those die-hards who, having learned this baroque > language, will continue in its use. > > Russell > Agreed. Isn't it nice that people are different? I'll stick to LaTeX until the day WordProsessor output can be made to look like LaTeX. -roffe
hoepfner@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov (Patrick Hoepfner) (05/29/91)
evensen@husc9.harvard.edu (Erik Evensen) writes: >In article <53375@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: [ ... deleted stuff ... ] >IMHO, MS Word is really bad at typesetting equations >so I use TeX whenever I need to do anything but the most trivial >writing with equations... But I use Word for easy stuff with straight >text. Also BibTeX is really cool. That is why there is MathType. MathType can make those nasty equations look nice and it doesn't require that compile, view, debug, compile, view cycle. You can not only cut and paste those equations into your favorite word processor, you can even save it as a TeX formatted equation and drop it into you TeX document saving you lots of time... This way you can get an equation that looks (IMHO) better than the equivalent one in TeX documents because you use the better looking scaled PostScript fonts! I *prefer* the look of PostScript to that of the bitmapped metafonts that TeX uses. -- Pat --------------------------------------> hoepfner@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov
evensen@husc9.harvard.edu (Erik Evensen) (05/29/91)
In article <hoepfner.675450164@heawk1> hoepfner@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov (Patrick Hoepfner) writes: evensen@husc9.harvard.edu (Erik Evensen) writes: >In article <53375@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: [ ... deleted stuff ... ] >IMHO, MS Word is really bad at typesetting equations >so I use TeX whenever I need to do anything but the most trivial >writing with equations... But I use Word for easy stuff with straight >text. Also BibTeX is really cool. That is why there is MathType. MathType can make those nasty equations look nice and it doesn't require that compile, view, debug, compile, view cycle. You can not only cut and paste those equations into your favorite word processor, you can even save it as a TeX formatted equation and drop it into you TeX document saving you lots of time... This way you can get an equation that looks (IMHO) better than the equivalent one in TeX documents because you use the better looking scaled PostScript fonts! I *prefer* the look of PostScript to that of the bitmapped metafonts that TeX uses. -- Pat --------------------------------------> hoepfner@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov Pardon, my ignorance but where can one get MathType and how much does it cost? If it's free then I'll take another look at using MS Word rather then OzTeX...One other thing though, some of my collaborators still live in the mainframe and Unix world and it sure is easy for me to send them Tex or LaTeX files... --erik (evensen@husc9.harvard.edu)
Mike.Pruett@f13.n396.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Pruett) (05/31/91)
TO:rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu
FROM:mjpruett@mmug.edgar.mn.org
Where can I get OzTex? It sounds pretty good, especially the
price!
<-mjpruett@mmug.edgar.mn.org(Mike Pruett)
---
* Origin: New Orleans MUG BBS (Line 2) * RA/D'Bridge * PEP/V.32 * (1:396/13)