Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!ugle.unit.no!nuug!ulrik!rolfl From: rolfl@hedda.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.wanted Subject: Re: Word processors vs typesetters (was: Why Mac output ...) Message-ID: Date: 28 May 91 12:12:40 GMT References: <20225@cs.utexas.edu> Sender: news@ulrik.uio.no (Mr News) Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.wanted Organization: University of Oslo, Norway Lines: 69 In-Reply-To: turpin@cs.utexas.edu's message of 27 May 91 16:01:06 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: hedda.uio.no >In article <20225@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: > > Some might say that programs such as TeX have succombed to the > "fallacy" that "it's more important that programs [have the most > beautiful output], than that they do what they are supposed to > do". What Mr Lindgren fails to note is that different people > have different views of what their writing tool is "supposed to > do", which is why there are different tools in the first place. > Not really. My view is rather that word processors have limitaitons that give users false impressions of what is possible to accomplish. Users do things in the most bizarre ways to come around shortcomings that aren't really there. One example is a client who had installed a MacWrite in such a way that the window was wider than the screen. She didn't know that it's possible to resize the window, but succumbed to this as another fact of life. > I want my writing tool to do several things. > > (1) Make it easy for me to write and edit papers. This is where TeX, IMHO, is far superior to any word processor. I write psychological documents. I need citations not to [item number in reference list], but to [author and year]. NO mac word processor supports this citation style. LaTeX even supports different ways to do it (OK, you need to know how to find the style files, but they're there, they work, they're free, ...) > > (2) Produce good hard copy. At my institute, _only_ TeXhackers are allowed to submit single-spaced papers. Word and a LaserWriter are not legible enough. Our professors don't know what LaTeX is, but refer to it as "the programs those maniacs use that make their papers look as if they were pulled out of a scientific journal". > > (3) Produce a good screen display for reading. > OzTeX under system 7 looks quite nice. I agree that it's a pity that you cant get pictures on the screen, but UNIX with a good PostSript previewer saves some printouts. Reading LaTeX text is just a matter og habit. > (4) Support transmission of papers and paper fragments. No problem. Just remember to submit the macros as well. > In my opinion, TeX and its variants totally fail (1). They are > also poor at (3) -- it is more difficult for me to browse a TeX > file than it is for me to browse a file under almost any of the > Mac word processors. I don't understand this. Text is text. I need the screen for layout previewing, not for proofreading. I use paper printouts for proofreading. I don't want my eyes blasted out before I'm 25. > > Writing tools are getting better at both (1) and (2). The > difference in (2) between tools like TeX and word processors is > small. (It took me three years to notice and wonder about it.) > Soon, it will be negligible or non-existent. TeX will then > disappear, except perhaps as an intermediate form, and, of > course, for those die-hards who, having learned this baroque > language, will continue in its use. > > Russell > Agreed. Isn't it nice that people are different? I'll stick to LaTeX until the day WordProsessor output can be made to look like LaTeX. -roffe