Modern LaTeX Replacement?

javierzinho writes "For many years I have been using LaTeX to compose scientific documents, but truly I am getting tired of its complexity. You have to install new packages for new features, compatibility issues are everywhere, you need to know commands for everything, table composition is torture, image insertion is an odyssey if you don't have the 'right' format, and you need to be a LaTeX Jedi master to create a new document class. I'm looking for a document processor (not a word processor) that is a viable replacement for LaTeX, possessing all of its advantages — consistency between text and math text, automated cross references, direct PDF creation, etc. — but that is not stuck in the 1980s with the compiler metaphor and weird font technology. An application with visual interface and so on. I've tried Scientific Word and Lyx but both are front-ends for LaTeX. Publicon only produces PDF files by exporting to LaTeX and subsequently using pdflatex. Add-ons for MS-Word are a joke, and webEq is intended for web publishing, not for PDF production. Does anybody know of a decent, scientific-structured document processor that is a modern application?"

Comments

Top 1% of 1%

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Remember, when you're doing highly technical writing like that, you're literally out at [or beyond] the top 1% of 1%.

The sad truth of the matter is that the servicing of highly technical writers just isn't a very big market [and, barring something like artificial manipulation of the genome, will NEVER amount to a very big market], and you're gonna be lucky if anyone bothers to release a product for it.

Heck, we mathies ought to count our lucky stars that Knuth ever took the time to design TeX in the first place.

Re:Top 1% of 1%

[dubl-u]

The sad truth of the matter is that the servicing of highly technical writers just isn't a very big market

I know bupkis about TeX, but I do know a little about the business of software, and I can think of three things that make it even worse than the market size would indicate.

First, the high end of anything is likely to have a lot of divergence of needs. McDonald's can serve 80% of America with the same products, but you'd never be able to satisfy the top 1%, let alone the top 1% of that, with a single restaurant.

Second, all of those people, given that they are dedicated professionals and masters of their domains, will be very fussy, wanting any program they use to be well tailored to their needs. Look at programmers and the great variety of tools we use, even though the tasks are are pretty similar. So even for the same set of needs, you'd have a hard time making a product that a sufficient chunk of people liked.

And third, since everybody is used to TeX, you need to support a big swathe of what people are used to there to make people happy. Putting a modern face on that isn't easy, or somebody already would have done it.

And a bonus fourth reason: there's no money in it. It's not like most of the people writing science papers are swimming in dough, and they're used to getting TeX for free. Most of the market just wouldn't pay much for a replacement, even a better one.

So yeah, I agree; I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a good commercial solution, not until it's a cheap mod of some existing technology.

LaTeX does what I need it to do

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this funny that I just learned LaTeX two weeks ago. I ported my entire thesis over to LaTeX and have had nothing but professional and consistent results.

What's the problem with it, again? It doesn't have a fancy GUI? It works great for me.

Re:Why latex at all ?

[Ice Wewe]

It's called typesetting and, unfortunately, LaTeX is still the freakin' best.

What do you mean by "unfortunately"?

Unfortunately no software since [LaTeX] has come close to the feature-set and quality of LaTeX.

\LaTeX is not complex

[Christopher_Olah]

It's not as bad as it seems.

Let me begin by explaining how I came to use LaTeX. One of my friends pointed me to LaTeX. I read the Not so short Guide to LaTeX and loved the thought behind it. I used it for everything. Biology, chemistry, physics, math, papers, letters, essays, type setting in other alphabets... The list goes on and on.

And I discovered something: while it has a steep learning curve, LaTeX is easy. The problem is that people don't grow up using it.

That said, there are some poorly designed packages... These can be difficult to use... Just search ctan and read documentation till you find one that you like...

Re:Why latex at all ?

[einer]

Know what's harder than LaTex when you need math typeset correctly? Anything that's not LaTex.

Re:The complexity seems worst at first.

[pz]

I can't help but question the complaints on the complexity.

I'm a hard-core TeX user. Not a LaTeX user (sorry, I disagree violently with Leslie Lamport's aesthetics, and the code just isn't solid enough), but a TeX user.

Although TeX may be at times frustrating, there are two things that I know to be true, and provide comfort:

1. Although there may be opacity in the system, logic and rationality pervades its design, so that, given sufficient time and effort, I can understand exactly what, how, and why something works or does not work the way it does. This is huge. I will never, ever, understand many of the operational choices in OpenOffice and Word because they are not based on a rational, logical framework, leading to the impression that they are both horribly idiosyncratic.

2. TeX is bug free. If text isn't laying out the way I want it to, it's because my code is not correct, not because there's some problem with TeX. In contrast, I've lost track of the number of bugs I've seen in OO and Word.

You can, and should, clamor that LaTeX is not bug free. It isn't, and very often the packages distributed for it are riddled with bugs. The IEEE Transactions class is one, embarrassing, example. But then, if you roll your own packages, like me, you have no one else to blame when they don't work correctly, and can take comfort that when they do, you've done a good job and your documents are beautiful.

The biggest problem with any of the WYSIWYG editors I've used (and, having typeset two conference proceedings that solicited contributions in LaTeX and Word, I've seen many and varied instances of this) is that the settings are not explicitly represented in the visible document, and so become hidden and often missed. If you aren't careful, it's very easy to have one paragraph appear in a slightly different font than the next, or to have one stretch of lines be ragged right and the rest be fully justified, or have the hyphenation settings change from one portion of the document to the next. It's horrible, and fixing this is a royal pain. Having explicit formatting within a compiler paradigm is the only way to go when producing professional quality documents.

How to transcend:

[Kludge]

The best (only?) way to learn and write in LaTeX is to take another person's example file, and modify it with your own text.
When it comes to typesetting, never do anything yourself. Steal, steal, steal.

Re:Nope.

[pthisis]

No shit. This is bizarre to me:

For many years I have been using LaTeX to compose scientific documents, but truly I am getting tired of its complexity. You have to install new packages for new features, compatibility issues are everywhere

LaTeX is the pinnacle of "what you did 10 years ago will work beautifully today". If you are installing new packages willy-nilly, something is horribly wrong.

I have assignments I wrote for a group theory class in 1993 that render exactly the same today as they did then. That is, in fact, the reason that Metafont uses e (2.718...) and TeX uses pi (3.1415...) as their version numbers. There are no changes in functionality these days; they only correct true bugs.

Indeed, Knuth has said the reason for that is so that documents written today will render the same in 20 or 100 years. New versions are legally not allowed to change the behavior or typesetting of the program without changing the name to something other than TeX. And as a user, that's completely true. If you learned it in 1995, you know it now.

The story is really, truly bizarre to me. Given that it's railing against a central tenet of TeX, I would expect some explanation other than "truth by assertion".