Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!educ-isis!teexdwu
From: teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK)
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: TeXbook for version 3.0 of TeX ?
Message-ID: <1990Nov18.171830.8860@ioe.lon.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Nov 90 17:18:30 GMT
References: <510@research.cc.flinders.oz> <1990Nov16.202645.10216@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> <1990Nov17.183845.24090@csrd.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK)
Organization: Institute of Education University of London
Lines: 51

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.]