rabbit@eddie.mit.edu (Warren J. Madden) (09/28/90)
Greetings! A while back I posted a request for information about math equation formatters. First, I'd like to thank all those who responded. I got several requests for a summary posting, so here it is: SUMMARY OF INFO FOR MATH EQUATION FORMATTERS Expressionist got several positive reviews, but with a note that one must have Word 4.00b to get it to work properly with Word. Several people noted that Expressionist works well with Theorist. Another said that if you want to edit equations that you have pasted into word processing documents you have to basically start over. MathWriter got a black mark from one person for being inflexible, but another said that it had a somewhat cleaner interface than Expressionist. Tex was said to look great, but the commands were non-intuitive. The advice was to skip it. Word got a mention or two for short equations. MacEqn seems to have vanished from the market. One responder said it bombs terribly on any System > 4.0. Hope this helps! Warren J. Madden rabbit@eddie.mit.edu
philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (09/29/90)
In article <1990Sep28.160114.5204@eddie.mit.edu> rabbit@eddie.mit.edu (Warren J. Madden) writes:
[summary of eq'n editors with the statement MacEqn bombs]
MacEqn does not bomb. It works fine, as does Expressionist with Write Now.
Expressionist with Write Now is nice in that the baseline is kept track of.
If I recall, MacEqn also pastes correctly into many wordprocessors.
That being said, I think it is fairly obvious that equation editors are
not the answer to the problems involved in typing documents of a mathematical
nature. The issue of in-line equations, and the very idea of an equation
being treated as a "picture" makes for editing,etc...a difficult task.
It is odd that the Mac has had to put up with this situation for such a
long time. On the PC there are several WYSIWYG math word processors. One
example is EXP. To date there is NO WYSIWYG math word processor for the
Mac, unless you consider FrameMaker2.0 which I would not classify as
such. There is hope however, as one will appear( and is VERY nice). I
can't go into anymore details at this point, but I highly doubt that the
issue of equation editors will be around much longer.
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu [or here]
[my opinions]tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) (10/03/90)
In <15631@yunexus.YorkU.CA> philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >That being said, I think it is fairly obvious that equation editors are >not the answer to the problems involved in typing documents of a mathematical >nature. The issue of in-line equations, and the very idea of an equation >being treated as a "picture" makes for editing,etc...a difficult task. As a matter of interest, has anyone used TeX, and one of these 'equation editors', and *not* settled for TeX? TeX/LaTeX is the standard for writing and printing mathematics. To use anything else is like using EBCDIC, or 9-bit bytes. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct3.142236.14143@maths.tcd.ie> tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes: >As a matter of interest, >has anyone used TeX, and one of these 'equation editors', >and *not* settled for TeX? >TeX/LaTeX is the standard for writing and printing mathematics. >To use anything else is like using EBCDIC, or 9-bit bytes. AAA-men!! And especially with fast convenient TeX implementations like Textures available that have essentially instantaneous previewing built in, can include PICT and Postscript illustrations in the source
rsutc@fornax.UUCP (Rick Sutcliffe) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Sep28.160114.5204@eddie.mit.edu>, rabbit@eddie.mit.edu (Warren J. Madden) writes: > > MacEqn seems to have vanished from the market. One responder said it bombs > terribly on any System > 4.0. I just got an upgrade notice from them, so they are alive and well. Rick Sutcliffe
scavo@cs.uoregon.edu (Tom Scavo) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct3.142236.14143@maths.tcd.ie> tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes: >In <15631@yunexus.YorkU.CA> philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: > > >>That being said, I think it is fairly obvious that equation editors are >>not the answer to the problems involved in typing documents of a mathematical >>nature. The issue of in-line equations, and the very idea of an equation >>being treated as a "picture" makes for editing,etc...a difficult task. > >As a matter of interest, >has anyone used TeX, and one of these 'equation editors', >and *not* settled for TeX? I think most everyone agrees that TeX output is superior to anything that the present generation of wysiwyg systems is capable of. But LOTS of people find TeX unintuitive and difficult to use. There certainly is room for software that offers the best of both worlds. -- Tom Scavo <scavo@cs.uoregon.edu> ---------
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (10/06/90)
In article <10@sierra.STANFORD.EDU> siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes: >In article <1990Oct3.142236.14143@maths.tcd.ie> tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes: >>has anyone used TeX, and one of these 'equation editors', >>and *not* settled for TeX? >AAA-men!! Wait a minute. The latest versions of many of these equation formatters, notably Expressionist 2.0 and probably MathType, allow one to import and export equations in TeX format. Both together are better than either alone. You don't have to hassle with a complicated syntax if your needs are simple, and if you need to tweak in a way which only TeX provides, you have that option too. -- Mark Wilkins -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) (10/07/90)
I'm probably now well identified as a strong TeX supporter in these discussions, but I'm asking the following question genuinely for information, NOT to hassle anyone: (I haven't used any of the other equation formatters for some time.) 1) Are _global_ changes possible in equations generated by the WYSIWYG equation formatters like Expression, MathType, etc? That is, if you have a document that contains a bunch of equations prepared using one of these programs, with Greek betas sprinkled through the equations, can you give one global command and change all the betas to gammas, say? 2) What macro capabilities are there? That is, if you have some complicated expression which appears multiple times, for example as a denominator in multiple equations, can you replace it by a macro or named variable, and just type the variable name in? (And if you want to change some detail inside the expression, can you just change the macro definition and have the change appear in all the places where the macro is/was used?)
dana@are.berkeley.edu (Dana E. Keil) (10/08/90)
siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes: >1) Are _global_ changes possible in equations generated by the WYSIWYG >equation formatters like Expression, MathType, etc? >2) What macro capabilities are there? Answers for MathType: 1) Gobal changes are not possible. 2) "Macros" are not written description but are rather a type of template. Thus you can insert a frequently-used expression into a more complex expression by mouse-clicking on (or keyboarding for) the stored element. Any change desired in this resulting inserted material would be edited in the standard WYSIWYG way.