Comments on: In which I learn things about TeX http://www.logophile.org/blog/2009/04/27/in-which-i-learn-things-about-tex/ blog of a logophile (not "logos", but "λόγος") Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:21:32 +0000 hourly 1 By: tikitu http://www.logophile.org/blog/2009/04/27/in-which-i-learn-things-about-tex/comment-page-1/#comment-6594 tikitu Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:27:42 +0000 http://www.logophile.org/blog/?p=652#comment-6594 <p>You <em>said</em> "non-trivial", so I'll cut you some slack.</p> <p>LaTeX 3: seems to me to be focused on people who write packages. Which is all well and good, but ... not very helpful for those of us who want to <em>use</em> the packages, unless they get written.</p> <p>BibTeX 1.0: will never arrive. And is to some extent superceded by biblatex anyway, although that may stay at v.0.8 forever...</p> <p>Nonpareil: LuaTeX looks fun. To be honest I'm losing faith in open-source enthusiast-driven development, but that might be just pre-dissertatory depression setting in.</p> You said “non-trivial”, so I’ll cut you some slack.

LaTeX 3: seems to me to be focused on people who write packages. Which is all well and good, but … not very helpful for those of us who want to use the packages, unless they get written.

BibTeX 1.0: will never arrive. And is to some extent superceded by biblatex anyway, although that may stay at v.0.8 forever…

Nonpareil: LuaTeX looks fun. To be honest I’m losing faith in open-source enthusiast-driven development, but that might be just pre-dissertatory depression setting in.

]]> By: S. glaber http://www.logophile.org/blog/2009/04/27/in-which-i-learn-things-about-tex/comment-page-1/#comment-6593 S. glaber Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:50:01 +0000 http://www.logophile.org/blog/?p=652#comment-6593 <blockquote>you have to understand it at all levels simultaneously to use it</blockquote> <p>Well, I produced my first non-trivial document with it last week. Either I managed to understand it simultaneously at all levels in about two days, or such understanding is not really required. The simplest ConTeXt document is</p> <p><pre> \starttext ConTeXt fanboy? Moi? \stoptext </pre></p> <p>which requires very little understanding.</p> <p>So I'll assume that's not really what you meant, and join you in your wise postponement of this argument to another day: specifically, a day subsequent to both our handing-in dates. (By which time LaTeX 3, BibTeX 1.0, and Nonpareil will probably be out, ho ho.)</p> you have to understand it at all levels simultaneously to use it

Well, I produced my first non-trivial document with it last week. Either I managed to understand it simultaneously at all levels in about two days, or such understanding is not really required. The simplest ConTeXt document is

\starttext
ConTeXt fanboy? Moi?
\stoptext

which requires very little understanding.

So I’ll assume that’s not really what you meant, and join you in your wise postponement of this argument to another day: specifically, a day subsequent to both our handing-in dates. (By which time LaTeX 3, BibTeX 1.0, and Nonpareil will probably be out, ho ho.)

]]> By: tikitu http://www.logophile.org/blog/2009/04/27/in-which-i-learn-things-about-tex/comment-page-1/#comment-6592 tikitu Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:08:00 +0000 http://www.logophile.org/blog/?p=652#comment-6592 <p>I don't <em>want</em> to do things like that.</p> <p>The Rant Against ConTeXt is a rant for another day. Short version: as of last time I checked (about a year ago I think) you have to understand it at all levels simultaneously to use it. I'd be reluctant to invest that heavily at the best of times, and frantically dissertating is not the best of times.</p> I don’t want to do things like that.

The Rant Against ConTeXt is a rant for another day. Short version: as of last time I checked (about a year ago I think) you have to understand it at all levels simultaneously to use it. I’d be reluctant to invest that heavily at the best of times, and frantically dissertating is not the best of times.

]]> By: S. glaber http://www.logophile.org/blog/2009/04/27/in-which-i-learn-things-about-tex/comment-page-1/#comment-6585 S. glaber Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:02:11 +0000 http://www.logophile.org/blog/?p=652#comment-6585 <p>Ah, come over to ConTeXt already. I only realized yesterday (though I assume you noticed when you had a look at it) that it has full user interfaces in Dutch and German, so you can do stuff like</p> <p><pre> \doornummeren[Vraag][plaats=inmarge] \gebruikexternfiguur[Logo][FIG-0001][breedte=4em] \definieerkop[Rubriek][paragraaf] \stelkopin[Rubriek][letter=schuin] </pre></p> <p><i>Nice</i>. Well, it would be if I spoke Dutch.</p> Ah, come over to ConTeXt already. I only realized yesterday (though I assume you noticed when you had a look at it) that it has full user interfaces in Dutch and German, so you can do stuff like

\doornummeren[Vraag][plaats=inmarge]
\gebruikexternfiguur[Logo][FIG-0001][breedte=4em]
\definieerkop[Rubriek][paragraaf]
\stelkopin[Rubriek][letter=schuin]

Nice. Well, it would be if I spoke Dutch.

]]> By: tikitu http://www.logophile.org/blog/2009/04/27/in-which-i-learn-things-about-tex/comment-page-1/#comment-6581 tikitu Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:47:28 +0000 http://www.logophile.org/blog/?p=652#comment-6581 <p>Probably true. But (a) if you're using TikZ, scanning for packages is not your bottleneck, and (b) if it <em>is</em> there you have to keep it up to date.</p> Probably true. But (a) if you’re using TikZ, scanning for packages is not your bottleneck, and (b) if it is there you have to keep it up to date.

]]> By: Robin http://www.logophile.org/blog/2009/04/27/in-which-i-learn-things-about-tex/comment-page-1/#comment-6580 Robin Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:38:56 +0000 http://www.logophile.org/blog/?p=652#comment-6580 <p>Hmm. Last I looked, things were saying ‘It's not needed, but you can put it there to make scanning faster.’</p> Hmm. Last I looked, things were saying ‘It’s not needed, but you can put it there to make scanning faster.’

]]>