Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Framemaker?
You just made it abundantly obvious that you have no comprehension of the submitter's problem.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
And it's not happening. To beat latex at typesetting requires a lot of of work, and with latex basically perfect from a bug perspective any sort of realistic replacement is going to start with it as a base.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
Math in OpenOffice is even uglier than in MS Word. I consider this quite an achievement considering how ugly Word is to begin with. AFAIK, LaTeX is still the only way to get decent-looking maths.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
http://lout.wiki.sourceforge.net/FAQ
Simple, do what I did and start using http://kile.sourceforge.net/>Kile
That's rather surprising, considering that he's not dead yet (cue Monty Python music).
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.
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.
I can't help but question the complaints on the complexity. I generally have a repertoire of packages that I use frequently like the ams packages, pstricks for image drawing, beamer for powerpoint-like presentations, and the external program image magic to make pictures the correct format.
Using other packages periodically tends to not have too many conflicts, except when trying to conform to required document classes of certain journals. But the workarounds generally don't take too much time.
I have yet to find something as robust as LaTeX, yet relatively user-friendly. Then again, I've never tried to create my own document class, merely modified what is already there. That always seemed to be the domain of the nuts-and-bolts programmers rather than the people who just want a typsetting language. So my idea of "user-friendly" may be a little skewed.
PlAsTiC?
Any replacement for LaTeX that intends to do most of the same things is pretty much doomed to be markup language, even if you dump XML pixie dust on it. XML after all is just a horrible human unreadable markup language itself.
So once one accepts that the question simplifies to can LaTeX be replaced with something more usable by humans. First off the font system is purely a legacy thing, since Tex predates pretty much all other currently popular font tech. So could LaTeX be retrofitted to use TrueType for everything? Probably. In a 100% backwards compatible way? Only if a genius pulls a freaking miracle out of his butt.
If someone were to do a total rethink/rewrite, and if said person were a genius on the level with Knuth, then by making use of what we know today a new and better typesetting system could probably be created. Getting everyone to agree on anything else would be the biggest problem.
Democrat delenda est
Type setting is a very different task than word processing. Proper type setting involved heavy math in order to optimize the formatting of the document. Look up the Knuth-Plass line breaking algorithm for the most basic example (there are better algorithms now days). These sorts of formatting tweaks are things that OpenOffice and MS Word just don't do.
Having used LaTeX to typeset my dissertation, I share these concerns about LaTeX. The documents it produces are beautifully typeset and look great -- especially for math. The notion that the writer is agnostic of the typesetting procedure and methods with LaTeX is a complete lie. I've never had to worry about ratios, measurements, indentations, word-per-line, empty pages and other problems as I have in LaTex. LaTeX submissions to journals are becoming less and less available -- in physical chemistry and chemistry journals at least.
There is a large and important market for high-quality typesetting software with excellent math functionality. More importantly, something which interfaces with bibliographic software well, and produces high quality PDFs. (Bibtex does a decent enough job, but I find that it's plagued by the same problems as LaTeX.)
I've searched for an alternative as well, and I'm quite sure that none exist. I haven't seen other type setting documentation formats for journal submissions, which I think is an important hint.
I understand your qualms with LaTeX as a long time user, but given the alternatives I find it better (though word processors are easier to use, LaTeX makes things much prettier).
A word processor front end (let's pick Open Office Writer as an example) with a LaTeX backend would be a good mix, but also give you the downside of WPs, namely constant layout fiddling instead of focussing on content.
I don't quite understand your complaint about the way LaTeX is structured wrt packages. It's pretty much the same thing you see with Firefox where you have a core program with lots of useful plug-ins for added functionality, and as such it's the same argument as it has.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Anyone weigh in?
Sure. That's not even close to what this guy is looking for. LaTeX is to printed publications (or PDFs) as HTML is to a webpage. He's not looking for a program for changing fonts in a GUI. He's looking for a modern way to typeset documents kind of like going from HTML table layouts to CSS layouts. Where is badanalogyguy when you need him?
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Well what's the replacement? Word/Writer are garbage for writing research papers or theses, so what else is there?
PowerPoint, of course. To handle the math expressions, just use Comic Sans. That makes it look like the math problems were solved with a pencil, the way a real mathematician would do it.
The problem is that all the things with decent interface have crappy quality of output. Truth is, latex (tex really) have far FAR better output than anything else. Nothing comes close in terms of typesetting text and math correctly. I can spot a word document once it's printed. Not by the font, but by text layout. Reading something written in a gui word processor like word (or openoffice) hurts your eyes and your brain.
Plus, your problem was the interface. So why not consider something that outputs latex? It needs to be a front end that handles all the dirty work and uses latex for what it does best. Just like you don't care that most of your operating is written in C which is just as old technology.
Plus, most places that want mathematics documents, really want you to submit latex. You're better off with something that can output it natively.
Writing something that does the same thing is stupid if what is wrong is an interface. If a good interface is written, you might never know you are using latex (or tex) in the background.
Hire a calligrapher. Its gotta be cheaper than a FrameMaker license.
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.
It is LaTex, but made easy. Made very easy. It's managed by a co-worker and friend of mine, so I may be biased. But he's done some exceptional work with it (including many internal manuals here at Red Hat). So check it out. He is a big KDE fan, so it's made the transition to QT 4 recently and it looks fabulous. http://www.99b.org/wyneken/
I've taken a couple of stabs at LaTeX through the years. I have no real need for a proper type-setting platform like LaTeX because I am not in the world of academia that demands it, so I was never able to get past the learning curve imposed by LaTeX.
Now, let me say... I get it. I understand how invaluable it is to submit a paper in a format so less time can be wasted "making it pretty" and more can be spent on the meat of the work. That fact doesn't elude me.
What I never figured out was how to download a stinking template from IEEE and start writing a document. I never figured out how to compose my own document type so I could use it to empower the written arts that I am interested in. I never got past the hurdle, so to this day I still use OpenOffice Writer as my word processor and haven't been able to "transcend" to a proper type-setting program so make all the boring formatting tasks easy.
I even read the LaTeX Wikibook a number of months ago and this didn't even get me over the hump on my way to publication.
So, I echo the sentiments of the article submitter. LaTeX is hard, and either better documentation or a better alternative is needed to make it accessible to the rest of us.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
It sounds like FrameMaker will probably do just about everything you want, including a very robust equation editor, automatic cross-referencing, robust table creation, Postscript and TrueType font support, and even XML includes.
However, know in advance that you will never love FrameMaker, nor will it ever love you. Its ways are Harsh and Unyielding. You will have to walk The Way of The Frame Within the Frame, and it will not make you any happier. (Except, unlike Word, your pictures won't decide to move for no apparent reason.) You must embrace the Pain Which is The Reference Page, and come through the other side.
But once you have mastered The Beast Which is FrameMaker, it will dance (albeit slowly) at your bidding...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
What is it about LaTeX that makes it so special? Can't scientific documents be laid out correctly in a word processor? I ask out of ignorance, not rhetoric.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Really, as a coder, LaTeX is far friendlier than word. That's not to say it's good, or that a gui would necessarily be bad in all circumstances, but anything that couldn't be hotkeyed would be fairly worthless in writing a 50-page thesis.
And though Word has the capabilities of sectioning and the like, it does not provide a friendly interface. A friendly interface would not have bold, italic, paragraph, center, or any of that on the default toolbar. It would provide you with "new section" "header" "book title" "emphasis." Not only that, but it would be aggressively difficult to work in the word processor paradigm. You want this title to be italic, and this one bold? Deal with it. The program exists so you don't have to think about that, because you should be thinking about content, not style. And if the styling affects the content, you should figure out how you can express the idea without the styling. Just because Word contains document processing functionality does not mean it is in a friendly interface. The friendly interface does what most people have wanted for the past two decades, and it does that very well. What most people have wanted for the past few decades is not particularly useful to those who seriously write.
Sadly, I think I'll be sticking to Emacs for the forseeable future, and saving all of my documents as text. Though that second part I'm more glad of, since most of my writing is non-technical.
Well its not that bad.. Sure making your own document class is pretty much impossible if you have a life, but using existing ones is pretty easy. Go to the conference you want to submit to, download their latex template and put your content into their sample file. That's all there is to it.
But I really only use latex for the stuff where exact formatting is critical and a template exists. Sure there are tools that let you use Latex for presentations, but it doesn't seem worth it for a presentation where the format is pretty much free form. You just end up with boring cookie cutter presentations.
So tell the AAAS that... http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/docx.dtl "Because of changes Microsoft has made in its recent Word release that are incompatible with our internal workflow, which was built around previous versions of the software, Science cannot at present accept any files in the new .docx format produced through Microsoft Word 2007, either for initial submission or for revision. Users of this release of Word should convert these files to a format compatible with Word 2003 or Word for Macintosh 2004 (or, for initial submission, to a PDF file) before submitting to Science.
Users of Word 2007 should also be aware that equations created with the default equation editor included in Microsoft Word 2007 will be unacceptable in revision, even if the file is converted to a format compatible with earlier versions of Word; this is because conversion will render equations as graphics and prevent electronic printing of equations. Regrettably, we will be forced to return any revised manuscript created with the Word 2007 default equation editor to authors for re-editing. To get around this, please use the MathType equation editor or the legacy equation editor included in previous versions of Microsoft Word, which can be accessed from "Insert Object" from the "Insert" ribbon in Word 2007."
Um... I don't think Word is an answer
I asked a mathematician how to solve constipation and he said, "Work it out with a pencil."
So I did.
I'm just glad I didn't ask an engineer or I'd have had to use a slide rule.
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
An other strength is its flexibility. Any replacement which dumbs things down makes things more rigid. LaTeX itself is already a "dumbed down" version of TeX which sacrifices some of the beauty of TeX but makes it more accessible. I myself use it primarily.
I could imagine a variant of LaTeX, which makes certain things easier, like positioning of pictures.
From the user prespective the problem of LaTeX is that it has a relative steep learning curve which once overcome saves enormous time. Processors like Word get you started immediately, adding more and more frustration once the user wants more control.
Check out PrinceXML. It actually adds footnotes, page number, and all that stuff to standard XHTML+CSS. It has already been used to typeset a book, and it looks quite nice. The authors of the one book have talked about their experiences with it
Their tool renders into PDF, but the same based XHTML will work in a web browser, giving the option of having the same document look good on paper and on the web.
There is also a Google Tech Talk on PrinceXML
I use both Word (2007) and LaTeX. I think you're completely and utterly wrong, and I note the complete lack of specifics in your post. Just consider this entry from the Microsoft Office Team Blog. Create a 3 column table to number an equation! You've got to be kidding me.
Layer on top of this the fact that in Office 2007 Microsoft has created a totally new equation editor that isn't compatible with its old editor. How long will this one last? Maybe they're finally turning Word into a capable, consistent tool, but it will take several more versions to be sure.
Making complicated tables in LaTeX is a pain, I'll grant that. But why don't you tell us exactly what it is that makes the latest version of Word such a capable tool for creating lengthy, cross-referenced, equation-laden documents.
Hi, I recently finished a PhD in math; while I probably haven't Texed as many pages as you, I have plunked out my share over the years. I've found the unix/linux front end program Kile to be extremely labor saving, particularly its newest version. It has forward/backward search, automatic completion for \ref commands, and a built in library of click-to-use symbols (and for these you are automatically advised of what packages are needed to use them.) I am agnostic on the issue of whether something "better" than LaTex is possible, or whether with great power always comes irritating details, but for what's out there, I think Kile can greatly improve the experience.
...LaTeX is still the first choice. It is more robust, and gives the user more control over appearance, than anything else I've seen. Kinda like the original post says, if it's not relevant anymore, what's the alternative?
Polyurethane. A little more expensive, but thinner and hypo-allergenic.
The next thing you know someone will ask for a replacement for vi.
I Heart Sorting Networks
> LaTeX is hard
You're probably applying it in layers that are too thick.
Let the hate commence. Anyway:
XSL-FO is another markup language, but there's a good bit going for it, not the least of which is an application that renders it directly to PDF: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/
The main good thing about FO is the ability to take advantage of related XML technologies to help you generate the documents (and the various tools that you can use to generate them). You can embed SVG diagrams and MathML if you're comfortable with the namespaces; FOP can definitely render SVG via Apache's Batik project (which is also very good) and I'm pretty sure will also render inline MathML via an optional plugin. A lot of people mentioned OpenOffice, and the cool thing there is that since the documents it generates are XML documents (I'm pretty sure its equation editor emits MathML), you can use XSLTs to transform the documents that it generates into XSL-FO documents for rendering.
The obvious missing feature is the WYSIWYG app, but you'll find a bunch of links at the W3C's XSL-FO site.
Anyway, like I said, let the XML hate commence.
C
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
Where is badanalogyguy when you need him?
Well, ya see this just like a guy who has got a bitchin' Funny Car with eight cylinders and 500 ci of displacement, cranking out 8,500 hp. The only thing is that he is getting a little nervous juicing it up with nitro and was looking for something with as much performance with less risk of swallowing a piston.
And then you come along offering a Toyota Prius because it gets pretty good gas mileage and you think it has some pep. Of course you aren't sure, because you haven't actually taken it on out on the highway.
Am I the only one that never liked LaTeX? I really tried, but plain TeX worked a lot better for me. I did my thesis in plain TeX and wrote the math tests I used to give in it as well. My solution was to develop a set of basic macros to import each time. I could never get used to how LaTeX tried to do everything for you. I much prefer a blank slate to build upon rather than someone else's vision. As I remember, even importing pictures (eps/ps format) was simple. Maybe plain TeX is worth taking a look at. You don't need to learn a whole bunch of complicated commands because there aren't any :). And it's a safe bet that once you've learned it, there won't be too many changes made in future releases. There's this four volume book set (I don't remember the author, but they were green) that I learned from. It showed you everything you'd want to know.
Make PDFs of two documents with square root radical formulas, one in OO.o, the other in Office (Equation Editor/MathType). Compare: The OO.o version is _really_ ugly and is not a continuous sign when you zoom in on the PDF view. The Office one, while not perfect is at least decent.
It's an MS Word addon that is specifically designed for highly technical formulas. I cannot personally rate it, as I don't use it. However the people who are using it are professors of electrical or computer engineering, so it clearly works for that field at least.
I'm currently using Texmacs to type in my math. Entering greek characters and structured expressions is a breeze. For example, to get \alpha^2 you'd enter the following keystrokes:
[a] [tab] [^] 2
Texmacs is WYSIWYG, like a word processor, so you only see the typeset document, and not the underlying text file.
There are disadvantages though; for publication, I have to make use of Texmacs "export to Latex" feature, which does not provide an optimal Latex file. It is also not possible (I believe) to import a Latex file. And Latex is the lingua franca of scientific writing. Texmacs also seems to have a small user base.
Nonetheless, Texmacs is the fastest and most efficient tool I have found for math heavy writing.
Well, really it's called \LaTeX, which renders all in caps with A a raised smallcap; the E subscripted; and the "X" a $\Chi$.
But who gives a shit anyway?
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Maybe it has improved in the last couple of years, but last time I tried maths in OpenOffice I ran screaming. I pretty much couldn't figure out how to do anything, nor could I find any useful documentation. I now use LyX for anything mathematical.
While I'm panning software, avoid TeXmacs. I once spent two hours trolling through documentation trying to figure out how to do something simple (I think change the footer on a page) without success. (This was the experience that converted me to LyX.)
I have had a few issues with LyX, but mostly it works great. I few weeks ago, it mysteriously decided I needed a package I didn't have, and I ended up having to change to the root account* and loading the document there before the auto-package-download would work to fix the problem.
* Technically the admin account, as I'm on Windows these days, but I can call it root if I want to.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
I thought that math was actually pretty reasonable in OO. I usually use it to write short equations, but I found that it was convenient to have the functionality to program a math function rather than deal with some wissywig editor. If I needed to write any moderately complex equations though, I'd probably go with LaTeX hands down. Learning it is a pain, but you have a bit more control when dealing with various markups and macros.
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...
First of all, you have zero chance of finding anything better than LaTeX for mathematical/scientific typesetting. However, there are ways of solving lots of the problems you mention without chucking LaTeX out the window.
Above all, be patient, and be open to learning. It's understandable that you want to do powerful and flexible document processing, without having to learn a whole bunch of commands. Unfortunately, this has a lot of similarity with people who want to program computers without learning a programming language. ("Why can't the computer just understand what I want it to do, in plain English?") Any program powerful enough to do everything you want is also powerful enough to do lots of things you don't want -- and because the computer can't read your mind, you have to learn how to tell it exactly what you want.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
You should think of TeX as a slightly high level description language for your document, eg if PDF (say) takes the role of machine languague, then in this analogy TeX would be C and LaTeX would be C++, and LyX would be like Visual Studio. With this analogy, we can see the flaw in your question: there's nothing wrong with these tools, other than the fact that you're no longer willing to use them, because you want something even higher level.
You really have two choices depending on your temperament: If you like to have control of all the layout details, then you should learn the tools properly and start taking advantage of the features to simplify your workload dramatically (you obviously don't know the tools well enough or you wouldn't complain about document classes, table composition, etc.) I suggest you learn how to use macros, and maybe read the TeXbook. In this way, you will be able to grow your own high level interface to LaTeX which will suit you extremely well. Since you've used LaTeX for years already, this is a good investment.
If however you're happy to delegate the fine tuning of your documents to the software, then your other choice is to give the LyX developers some feedback on what you'd like to see, or wait for a better front end to come out, which hides the complexity even more than LyX. Those things happen every once in a while, but they invariably introduce complications that make life more difficult when working on a joint paper together with other people. Try TeXmacs if that's what you want.
Speaking of markup languages, what about Docbook? Would that do what he wants?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I can have LaTeX installed on my Linux box, including all sorts of crazy extras, with less than one uninterrupted minute of effort. It obviously takes a few minutes to download and install, but I don't have to pay attention after getting the ball rolling. I don't know about other "Linux hackers", but I, for one, don't enjoy wasting my time on chores like software installation.
I'm interested to see if this thread reveals any credible alternatives to LaTeX, but in the meantime, there's Getting to Grips With Latex, and the more available Wikibooks copy, for those who need to get it done in LaTeX.
I'd say its main problem is that it's the wrong paradigm. Documents are declarative, not imperative. Therefore, the computer language used to express the document ought to be declarative too.
Personally, I tend to use HTML+CSS for writing documents (although lately I've gotten lazy and just used OpenOffice). The trouble with that method, though, is that despite "media:print" it really wasn't designed to be used in anything but a web browser (it's hard to control pagination, for example).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Know what's harder than LaTex when you need math typeset correctly? Anything that's not LaTex.
I use LaTeX because its output looks better than anything else I've seen on the market. The difference is subtle, but noticable. If you place a LaTeX document side by side with the same text processed by a different system, the LaTeX one is obvious. The reason for this is that the designers of TeX and LaTeX knew about proper typographical conventions. They knew about how to space letters, about line spacing. Looking at a well made LaTeX document is like looking at an elegantly typeset book. You aren't sure exactly why it looks good. But it does.
I've used Framemaker. It isn't bad. It's keystrokes for creating mathematical equations are efficient. However, its output still doesn't have the elegance of LaTeX. LaTeX does things that no other system does. For example, when you put an equation inline with text, it changes the format of the equation to fit in the line. Usually, inline equations don't cause the spacing of the line they are in to change. Try that in Word!
I do agree that tables are a pain to use. But I usually find that once I've made a template, then I don't have to mess with the details later. I use LaTeX to create mathematics exams, and I wouldn't use anything else. Using templates, it is faster than any other tool I have seen.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
How many times can one person +5 for saying the same thing repeatedly in the same topic?
A hypergenius that could not only exceed Knuth (Knuth, for Bob's sake!), but do it without resting on the established highest technology in the field (i.e. TeX and packages built around it)
I don't know about that. I think a more ordinary genius could do it, simply because they have the wisdom of Knuth plus others to build from, even if they reject the technical base of LaTeX, but incorporate the ideas and theories behind it.
Still, it would be quite an achievement, and I still agree with you that a full-on replacement is unlikely in the foreseeable future.
You didn't mention what type of science you are doing, so if you are an EE the best way to get schematic diagrams is still a LaTeX derivative. Circuit Macros is still the best I can find for now, located at:
http://www.ece.uwaterloo.ca/~aplevich/Circuit_macros/
Takes a few weeks to get really good at it, but the diagrams are the absolute best. There was a person who was making print quality symbols for gEDA through gschem, but I'm not sure that ever panned out. If you want a simple way to draw diagrams in ps then you might send the author an email.
I don't know if this is the case for you, but I find most people who find LaTeX hard are using it wrongly. Specifically, they are trying to precisely control the formatting, placement, etc. etc. of everything in their document. This is, pretty much, how you use today's WYSIWYG word processors. It's very cumbersome and arcane to do the same in LaTeX, and the results don't usually look very good in either case.
The right way to use LaTeX is to basically enter the semantic structure of your document, let LaTeX do all the typesetting, and then tweak it a bit as necessary. Realizing this was the point where I stopped fighting with LaTeX and started letting it work for me. I've been getting compliments on how beautiful my documents are. There's a lot of typesetting knowledge encoded in LaTeX, and, really, it probably does a better job than most of us can hope to do. One particular example I like to share is that, when I took my thesis to the printer, he remarked how glad he was that, finally, someone had thought about making the margins large enough that the text would be readable once printed and bound. I hadn't. But LaTeX had.
Incidentally, the above is also why I don't see a lot of value in WYSIWYG editors for LaTeX. On the one hand, being able to see what your final document will look like while you are creating it is good. On the other hand, it makes it very easy to fall into the trap of spending all of your time correcting this or that perceived layout error, instead of getting your actualy work done while letting LaTeX do the typesetting. I am not even sure WYSIWYG can be made to work right; a lot of algorithms in LaTeX are simply slow, and changing even one letter can cause your text to jump around, which is very annoying while editing.
Then, of course, there is the matter of commands. I recognize that having to type in commands is a significant hurdle for many people. Being a programmer and having a lot of experience with HTML, this isn't the case for me - I am used to using commands. As a programmer, I actually see LaTeX as having an advantage here: by defining new commands, you can automate repeating tasks and increase the maintainability of your code...err...document. I don't actually do this a lot, but it's very nice to have that ability for when it's useful.
All in all, I won't deny that LaTeX is hard. I know it is. On the other hand, I am not actually sure it is harder than Microsoft Word, which, in my experience, is its main competitor. Although Word is probably easier to get started with, learning the basic LaTeX necessary for creating a simple document is really not that much work, and the documents you produce will look a lot better than what Word produces. When you get to more complex documents, I find Word has a tendency to screw up - it will crash and/or eat parts of the formatting or content of your document. Granted, that's bugginess, not something inherent in WYSIWYG word processing, but it still ends up causing you a lot of frustration and losing you a lot of time. I've never seen LaTeX do this, and, even if it did, you would still have the source code of your document - at the very least, all your content is still there.
So, there you have it. My opinion, my experience, with input from quite a few others - LaTeX users, non-LaTeX users, and "I tried LaTeX but couldn't figure it out" users. In the end, my conclusion is that LaTeX is far from perfect, but it's still the best.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The best reason I can think of is that I have never seen Word reflow a whole paragraph when I typed a single word at the end like I have seen LaTeX do. I think the requirements of a smooth user experience means that Word breaks lines on a per-line basis, while LaTeX can afford to do per-paragraph optimization.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
I dunno. How many times can one person +5 for saying the same thing repeatedly in the same topic?
Here is some info from the FAQ:
Lout is similar in function to LaTeX and troff. Indeed, it borrows ideas, techniques and conventions from these typesetting systems. For example, Lout uses Knuth's (the author of TeX, on which LaTeX is based) optimal line breaking algorithm, and has extended it to paragraph breaking across pages. For simple documents, Lout, LaTeX and troff offer much the same functionality, with different syntax (see the "Simple Examples" section). Lout is much more "programmer friendly" than TeX's macros (and a fortiori than incomprehensible troff macros). See the "Advanced Examples" section.
Lout makes it easy to mix text and graphics. You can draw lines, arrows and boxes, scale and rotate objects, use color commands. While many of these things are possible in LaTeX by including Postscript files generated by utility programs such as xfig, you have to specify the size of each included figure, losing a lot of Lout's flexibility.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
But who gives a shit anyway?
After the Grammar Nazi, enter the Case Nazi.
at least 3...
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.
You know, this is actually a good analogy to the original problem presented.
Mod him down! ;P
[http://it-tastes-so-good.blogspot.com] Are you hungry?
> I use vi+latex to write my papers
Pfft. It's 2008 now, time to use a modern text editor and typesetter. I recommend vim+LaTeX.
"And there be unix which have made themselves unix for the kingdom of heaven's sake." - Matt. 19:12
MOD PARENT UP!!! Thanks for your extensive comments.
/tx/ pronunciation (that is, with a voiceless velar fricative as in Modern Greek, or the last sound of the German word "Bach", similar to the Spanish "j" sound)."
What software do you use with LaTeX?
Quote: "When you get to more complex documents, I find Word has a tendency to screw up - it will crash and/or eat parts of the formatting or content of your document."
I've experienced that. Sometimes Word even ruins its own files so badly that it can't read them. If that happens, here's a tip: Load the Word file in Open Office, and save it in Word format. That repairs the file. Word will then be able to read its own file. So, Open Office is a necessary Microsoft Office utility.
I sure wish Open Source authors would choose sensible names for their projects. The name TeX and LaTeX has undoubtedly reduced the acceptance of the software. See this quote, for example:
"TeX's creator Donald Knuth promotes a
Didn't he look around and see that no professional communication was using "Voiceless velar fricatives"? Did he decide that all other writers in the entire English language were wrong, and he was being more communicative than the professionals? Or was he intentionally making communication difficult?
IMO, the equation editor in Word 2007 was a huge improvement over the previous versions.
But you can include TrueType and other fonts.
Given that this is a clean rewrite, some other problems might have been solved on the way.
ConTeXt? Like LaTeX, but perhaps better in many aspects?
Sorry, no help here.
Oh, somebody cruel has forbidden you to use XeTeX, write in UTF-8 and use OpenType fonts directly from your system? Shame on them!
Ezekiel 23:20
How many times can one person +5 for saying the same thing repeatedly in the same topic?
Installation, and the basics of LaTeX are not terribly hard. Graphics support is a pain--it helps to have something like Illustrator that can make high quality EPS files out of anything. Then again, Word support for EPS has been pretty crappy also (dunno about 2008, however). Mathmode produces stunning results, but is a seriously nasty bit of code to read. Going from tex to a camera-ready pdf is fairly nasty, I write a makefile for this, which pretty much puts setting up an efficient LaTeX workflow out of reach for any non-programmer. Some of the command line tools don't have sensible defaults either (e.g. partial font embedding). There are enough differences in installations that steps for going from dvi to pdf can vary wildly from one installation to the next.
Getting LaTeX to comply with a template can be a pain--editors may be more accustomed to submissions from Word users, and not aware of LaTeX-specific problems. Sometimes the templates don't even comply with their own requirements. Some editors don't have standard bibliography formats either, and editing Bibtex templates seems to be a black-art, so one can't always count on that tool being available.
LaTeX has a few default settings that are rather silly... like over-eager hypenation and an insane idea of how much space a figure should be allowed to take up. This page got me past some of the more tedious problems: http://dcwww.camd.dtu.dk/~schiotz/comp/LatexTips/LatexTips.html
Overall I'd say its a fairly horrible experience--the only thing worse is MS Word.
No it's not, proper casing is proper casing. That's right, I'm the Semantics Nazi.
Docbook XML uses MathML inputs. MathML is a lot of voodoo from experience but not as much as LaTeX
And the good thing is, you can get LaTeX formulas even in OpenOffice: http://ooolatex.sourceforge.net/
[--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
GNU TeXmacs is the best document processor out there. It is also Free as in speech. It is inspired by TeX, but not a frontend for LaTeX like LyX as many believe. It will import your old LaTeX documents. I've used it to write my thesis (100 pages plus many, many figures and photos) and it works excellent, because you don't have to worry about layout. It just produces beautiful text and math.
http://www.texmacs.org/
WISSYWIG - What You See Say You What I Get
Duh!!
Know what's harder than LaTex when you need math typeset correctly? Anything that's not LaTex.
Agreed, I just finished my PhD thesis in Latex ac ouple of months ago and I have say that I like Latex quite a lot.
Although Latex is not for everyone, once you get to know it, you will see all the benefits. For example, just yesterday a colleague was preparing a paper to submit for a conference, in word (2007 no less) and he spend about 4 hours (or more!) getting the references right. In latex, a combination of using the JabRef [bibtex] database and \citep [Natbib] take care of the references for me.
Not to mention indexes, references (I work in the same Word paper I mentioned putting references in word, having to mark, insert a label, then insert reference, sheesh!).
Similarly, just about two months ago (for my Viva) I decided to "learn" to use Beamer to do my presentation. I tried to do it in Lyx, but I felt like if Lyx prevented me from doing things, I finished going back to Kile and doing my presentation in Latex + beamer.
BTW, for those of you who hate the Maths package available in Microsoft Office, I would recommend Texpoint. That lets you edit your formulas in Latex inside powerpoint, and creates an image (png IIRC). That is what I used (before going to Beamer).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Will all you Nazis just bugger off? That's right, I'm the Nazi Nazi.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!!
That's right, I'm the... well, you get it.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
> I don't know if this is the case for you, but I find most people who find LaTeX hard are using it wrongly.
Very true words. The whole idea of LaTeX is that it does all the formatting work for you. So complaining about "complexity" is really missing the issue: LaTeX is as complex as necessary for the task. Use it wisely, and it will go a long way.
If you do not want to deal with the complexity of different styles, then a front end like LyX can hide a lot of it. You still get high quality results, you can switch between styles, and you can use additional features manually if necessary. This does not mean that LyX is without fault, but I think it is a step in the right direction (very much unlike Word).
Concerning the OP's question about a document processor without the "compiler metaphor" (and it is a paradigm, not a metaphor)... there is no such thing. The whole idea of a document processor is that things are done right, and not fast. Doing this in real time is just asking for trouble. So you either end up with a draft view as in LyX, or with a sluggish real time preview (as you find in a few LaTeX editors). Anyway, with a document processor you are supposed to put down semantics, and not form, so looking at the exact final form is wasted precision. If you want to have certain things in certain places, LaTeX has commands and overrides to achieve that.
But I thought the Nazis were anti-semantic.
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
I'm not submitter, but I share some of his frustration.
First, I've used LaTeX since around 1987 (that was on the Amiga, btw) and I'm still convinced that for most of the documents I write LaTeX is clearly superior to other systems I've tried.
That's not to say there aren't some obvious points for improvement. Font support is archaic and really not something from this decade (nor the previous). I understand that XeTeX has some improvements in this area, I'll check it out. I need/want to use the Gentium font but after jumping through all the hoops that are indicated in the sparse documentation, it no worky.
But, for me, the number one frustration is the sheer impossibility to create a new base class. I write software for a living and have used many obfuscated languages. However, I just don't "get" the intricacies of programming for LaTeX.
I would love to have a letter.cls that doesn't look like it's an afterthougth. There is dinbrief.cls, but that has all sorts of problems of its own. I've tried several times to create a letter class, for A4 paper, that looks professional to use in a business. No such luck, I just couldn't do it. And the lack of alternatives on the 'Net seem to indicate that there aren't many others that could do it either.
So, to summarize, LaTeX a wonderful tool for typesetting reports and articles. Especially if those are heavy on math. But for other correspondence it isn't so great, or at least, it hasn't kept up with modern developments in font technology and document design.
Technically speaking Semantics is about the meaning of a given word or sign. Therefore proper casing is not about semantics.
Like so many other Nazis, you're misinformed.
Why on earth?!?!? Nobody in this forum seems to think Silicone is an excellent Latex replacement.
I'm amazed at the seriousness of this thread. It says something about the demographic inside this topic that somehow disturbs me.
Speaking as a maths teacher (but formerly a programmer for 20 years) the formula editor is the one thing that enabled me to insist on having OOo installed on my school Windows PC (in addition to the Microsoft Office which was installed by default). At the time (admittedly about 5 years ago) the OOo formula editor worked and the Microsoft Office one simply didn't in several odd ways. For instance you couldn't embed a formula in a table in MO, which made it kind of useless.
I now use OOo all the time because I have to use Windows at school and I use Linux at home so it gives me easy portability. In September I start at a new school and everything there is Apple, so I suspect I'll still be pushing for OOo.
Obviously I wouldn't push OOo as a viable substitute for LaTeX, but it does seem to have the edge on MO in some areas.
(Incidentally, I have no difficulty with interworking with colleagues who still use MO.)
putting a lameness filter on slashdot is like putting a shit filter on your asshole.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
No, we just hate juice.
Yes, I played around with JuraBib and it was pretty good. But when it became abandonware, it was suggested on the jurabib list to look to biblatex. That was the first time I had heard about biblatex. So I never made the investment to really learn JuraBib...biblatex is a far more flexible and general solution than JuraBib, IMO.
I dunno about you, I'm just anti-Symantec.
And user-unfriendly? Windows? What a fucking joke. Go back to your terminal.
When it comes to software package management, Windows is indeed stuck in the 90s.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
No easy way to do scientific notation? I defined a simple command so \scinot{10.6}{-6} does what you would expect. No dedicated "degrees" symbol? I defined one.
It's my personal preference (not necessarily that of anyone else), but I would never switch to a front end that took away my ability to create tools to make my life easier.
For the record, the definition is
\newcommand{\scinot}[2]{\ensuremath{#1 \times 10^{#2}}}
Actually, it wasn't so much made for European languages. It was made for typesetting in general. In fact, look to the KOMA-Scripts package, which was designed because European publishing wasn't originally well accounted for in TeX.
There are a number of other benefits which are, perhaps, why it looks more "bookish". Kerning, ligatures, finer control over hyphenation, glyph variants, real fonts, support for semetic languages, support for asian languages, etc. Take a look at the index of Knuth's Art of Programming. Arabic, Chinese, everything beautifully typeset. The Index seamlessly generated with appropriate sorting.
I suppose it's possible to look at professional typesetting and say, so what? In the end, though, that's the benefit. TeX is a typesetting system and a lot of people seem to want a Word Processor. These are different things.
There are things that are possible in TeX that aren't possible in Word. You have more control over the document (although Word certainly gives an appearance of control). TeX can make type that looks GOOD. However, some people think of text and publishing as commodities in the online world. They decide that they can live without these things.
That's fine with me. Personally, I enjoy seeing something done really well. I use TeX as it suits me. Someday, maybe someone will make a good WYSIWYG typesetting system. Until then, we have TeX.
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)