Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:54:20 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Mike Allison <mallison@konnections.com>, Ruslan Shevchenko <Ruslan@Shevchenko.Kiev.ua>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: teTeX, latex, Lyx Books Message-ID: <19971222165420.58177@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971222001438.4983S-100000@picnic.mat.net>; from Chuck Robey on Mon, Dec 22, 1997 at 12:22:25AM -0500 References: <349DF061.CE1@konnections.com> <Pine.BSF.3.96.971222001438.4983S-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 22, 1997 at 12:22:25AM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, Mike Allison wrote: > >> You get to have your own opinion and experience, of course, but I think >> for a general writing tool, LaTeX is about it. I've typeset books and >> even done overhead slides and color photos. >> >> It does cross references and indexes as well as all the front matter so >> well, that I don't know what else to use. >> >> I think TeX and AMSTeX were, of course, very Math/Sci oriented, but >> LaTeX in 2e has become quite a good general purpose publishing package. >> >> On the other hand, there are a lot of times when I just use a word >> processor for most layout tasks since they have most everything in >> WYSIWYG. They can't beat LaTeX' power when it comes down to nit picking >> little details and perfection, however, (being a typesetter) > > As far as opinion goes, I very willing to be proven wrong. I can easily > get the mm macros to do what you said above, PLUS Agreed. I wrote "The Complete FreeBSD" completely in troff. In addition, please note that I had to be convinced to move from TeX to troff (by O'Reilly, while writing "Porting UNIX Software". At this point (1993), I had been using TeX for all my formatting needs for 4 years. I didn't want to go, but when I did, I was amazed how much easier everything was. So don't suspect me of NIH. > Neatly making lists, embedded lists, lists enumerated automatically with > letters (upper/lower case both automatically available) numbers, Roman > numerals, and custom designed bullets. I'm not talking about allowing you > do do indent, I'm talking about doing it for you, remembering how many > lists are active for you and at what level, what change to make between > levels (when you end one sublist and go back to the parent) so that the > numbers and the numbering system you asked for when you invoked the list > macro works right. > > Same thing for chapters, figures, diagrams, etc. Nothing yo have to > remember, it does it all. I can force this in TeX, but I can't get it all > done neatly for me. Same thing for displays, like computer listings, and > all this stuff is available automatically for the table for contents, > which I don't have to mark things for, because the macros know I want > things like that marked. > > How about 6 different types of standard headers, some pages, some not, for > for formal papers, all sorts of standard things that I want macros to do > for me. > > Tell me that LaTeX does this all for me, not that LateX allows it, and > I'll be the first to switch. I think that TeX is great, I just don't yet > see the neat macro support. I suspect that TeX is at least as powerful as troff. The trouble is that the descriptions are so terrible. In fact, the documentation for troff isn't great, either, but it's easier to understand than TeX. With a good manual, TeX might have more of a following. And, of course, maybe Lyx will help. My trouble is that I don't have time to change around from one tool to another all the time, so I probably won't try it. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971222165420.58177>