Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.wanted:3870 comp.sys.mac.misc:12572 comp.sys.mac.apps:6391 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!ugle.unit.no!nuug!ulrik!rolfl From: rolfl@hedda.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.wanted,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: Why does Mac output not look as good as LaTex? Message-ID: Date: 27 May 91 10:31:27 GMT References: <20081@cs.utexas.edu> <1991May20.223955.22343@midway.uchicago.edu> <26376@ttidca.TTI.COM> <1445@mephisto.edu> Sender: news@ulrik.uio.no (Mr News) Organization: University of Oslo, Norway Lines: 47 In-Reply-To: ashwin@gatech.edu's message of 24 May 91 15:19:27 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: hedda.uio.no In article <1445@mephisto.edu> ashwin@gatech.edu (Ashwin Ram) writes: > In article rolfl@hedda.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren) writes: > > There is one additional reason why Mac output doesn't look as good as LaTeX: > > When figuring line breaks, TeX takes the entire paragraph into account, while > > word processors (usually, traditionlly, etc.) only consider the previous line. > > So a LaTeX paragraph will almost always be better adjusted. The algorithm that > > does this is quite simple, and could well, I suppose, be implemented in a word > > processor. > > TeX performs a complex optimization on the entire page to give you the best > possible output within its heuristics. This is why it's output looks almost > as good as you can get with professional typesetting. Interesting note. If TeX output looks 'almost' as good as you can get with professional typesetting, then anything lesser then TeX cannot do proffesional typesetting. Hence professional typesetting on a Mac is impossible. Unless, of course, you mean that TeX is almost as good as _any_ proffesional typesetter_. Which of these other proffesional typesertters is TeX second to? They use TeX proffesionally out there, you know, and I've seen professional typographer go gaga over what TeX can do (Actual quote: "I've been typesetting mathematics for 30 years now. I've never seen anything as good as this"). (But not quite; no-one > has as yet been able to fully mathematicize typesetting aesthetics.) This is > also why it's difficult to do this on a WYSIWYG word processor > (theoretically, a small change on one page could cause a complete > recomputation of all following pages). '! No me digas ! TeX does not nessecarily mathematicize typesetting aesthetics. TeX allows anything that lead types allowed you to, and more. You can even keep small changes on one page _from_ recomputation of all the following pages. The comparison with WYSIWYG word processors doesn't keep up because TeX offers you the ability to take any degree of control, something that word processors can't if you want to keep their operation user friendly. Word processors have the great disadvantage that they try to conform to the notion that `"it's more important that programs are easy to use, than that they do what they're supposed to do" > However, some subset of this optimization could (and should) be performed in > real time by WYSIWYG word processors. (E.g., it would be fairly easy to > optimize one paragraph at a time.) I'd be interested in hearing about > programs that do this. > > -- Ashwin. > -roffe