Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!digi.lonestar.org!kgallagh
From: kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher)
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: TeXbook for version 3.0 of TeX ?
Message-ID: <1279@digi.lonestar.org>
Date: 19 Nov 90 05:07:00 GMT
References: <510@research.cc.flinders.oz> <1990Nov16.202645.10216@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> <1990Nov17.183845.24090@csrd.uiuc.edu> <1990Nov18.171830.8860@ioe.lon.ac.uk>
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.
Lines: 62

In article <1990Nov18.171830.8860@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>...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?
>
Ah, but the second paragraph in the Preface states:

	"TeX for the Impatient" is intended to serve scientists,
	mathematicians, and technical typists for whom TeX is a useful tool
	rather than a primary interest, as well as computer people who have a
	strong interest in TeX for its own sake.  We also intend it to serve
	both newcomers to TeX and those who are already familiar with TeX.

In other words, the authors intend the audience for this book to be just about
everyone who uses TeX.  Despite this bold claim, they DO realize that their
book may not be for all newcomers.  In the fourth paragraph they write:

	If you prefer to start with a carefully guided tour, we recommend that
	you first ready Knuth's "The TeXbook" (see page 18 for a citation),
	passing over the "dangerous bend" sections, and then return to this
	book for additional information and for reference as you start to use
	TeX. 

I feel this to be good advice, since many newcomers need a gentler
introduction to TeX than "TeX for the Impatient" offers.  "The TeXbook"
provides such a gentle introduction to TeX.  Later on, in paragraph six, the
authors state more clearly the purpose of "Tex for the Impatient":

	The time-consuming part of learning TeX is learning the commands and
	the concepts underlying their descriptions.  Thus, we've devoted most
	of the book to defining and explaining the commands and the concepts.

The main purpose of the book, it seems, is to provide a command reference
manual of some sort for TeX.  But the authors then say, in paragraph eight:

	We must caution you that we haven't tried to provide a complete
	definition of TeX.  For that you'll need "The TeXbook", ...

So, the book is NOT a COMPLETE reference manual.  

After having spent some time inside the book, I can say that this book is NOT
a good introduction to TeX for the absolute beginner.  "The TeXbook" does a
better job at that.  Nor is it a hackers bible, since it is NOT a complete
reference.  "The TeXbook" is THE complete reference, but it was NOT written as
a reference manual, which makes it a poor reference manual.  "TeX for the
Impatient" does a much better job at being a reference manual.  Indeed, its
layout makes it easy to find information quickly.  If you are more than just a
casual user of of TeX, you may find "TeX for the Immpatient" a useful quick
reference.  But you will still need to own "The TeXbook" to look for answers
to questions not addressed in "TeX for the Impatient".
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gallagher        kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh
DSC Communications               OR apcihq!apcidfw!digi!kgallagh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------