[OS X TeX] Doh!
ascorpan at math.ufl.edu
Wed Nov 17 08:39:31 EST 2004
Are we done with this pointless discussion?
> In other words, like the French Republic, one and undivisible, on the
> one hand, and mathematics, on the other hand, a LaTeX editor can only
> exist in one and only one form.
> And, as for those who don't make it in the world, it is only because
> they don't want to.
> Dr.John R.Vokey wrote:
>> C'mon people. LaTeX is as LaTeX is, as the quote below makes clear..
>> It's cool; it's fine. For those who dig it. And not, for those who
>> don't. I have given up proselteyzing: I have done what I can do, and
>> it rarely works. All of my students and former students (and those
>> who they have infected, in turn) use LaTeX. A legacy of sorts (born
>> of the simple rule that no M$ Crapola is tolerated on my lab
>> computers). The rest: don't. They are not my concern. As Washoe
>> (the Chimpanzee) so aptly observed, they are ``bugs''---beyond my (or
>> Washoe's) ken. So what? Leave them to M$ Absurd, and other equally
>> laughable POS applications. Why would you (or we) care? Yes, we all
>> would like LaTeX to be easier for the uninitiated. And, no, it can't
>> really get any easier than it is and still be LaTeX (see LyX). So,
>> who cares? If they want M$ Absurd, so be it. As a senior scientist,
>> I demand at a minimum a pdf (in correct APA format) before I
>> review---not some POS M$ Absurd document that rarely translates
>> anyway. Otherwise, I don't review. Simple. On the other side: a
>> journal that refuses to review my *perfectly APA formatted pdf* (via
>> apa.cls) submission, never sees my submissions again. Again, simple.
>> You don't have to tolerate shite, so don't. Or not: it is your
>> life. Pick your battles.
>> On 16-Nov-04, at 6:00 PM, TeX on Mac OS X Mailing List wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Alain Schremmer wrote:
>>>> Re. Making LaTeX simple enough. I am simply not convinced that it is
>>>> not feasible.
>>> Many smart people have tried to put WYSIWYG front-ends on typesetting
>>> languages for over 25 years. They all failed. The reason is that the
>>> syntax and meaning of typesetting languages like TeX are too rich and
>>> subtle for simple-to-use visual metaphors. sooner or later, and
>>> typically sooner, the underlying language "leaks out" from under the
>>> visual interface.
>>> -- F
>> John R. Vokey, PhD
>> B.E.R.G. - Behaviour and Evolution Research Group
>> Micro-Cognition Laboratory
>> Department of Psychology & Neuroscience
>> University of Lethbridge
>> Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4
>> --------------------- Info ---------------------
>> Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
>> & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
>> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
>> List Post: <mailto:MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu>
> --------------------- Info ---------------------
> Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
> & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
> List Post: <mailto:MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu>
--------------------- Info ---------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
& FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Post: <mailto:MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu>
More information about the MacOSX-TeX