Re: The Problems of TeX

Torsten Bronger <bronger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hallöchen!

Rowland McDonnell writes:

Torsten Bronger <bronger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

The editor is not explained at all "because one of the strengths
of LaTeX is that you can choose one". The same for the
distribution.

I'm not sure what you mean by `the same for the distribution'.

MiKTeX, TeXLive, etc.

<puzzled> Well, I've got one sane choice of TeX distribution - MacTeX,
based on TeXLive.

The choice of distribution is not remotely free but depends on how much
the user already knows about TeX and friends. Some TeX systems need
very expert care for installation, others do not.

Even MacTeX that I got needed a *LOT* of work on my part before I could
get it working usefully. Documentation is poor, help is hard to come
by.

I don't see that many people are in a position to install a TeX
installation from scratch these days in any case - every one that I've
looked at has needed a stone-cold TeX+computer expert to set up.

So: I would say that the selection and installation of the TeX system
depends on having a TeX expert who's also an expert in the host computer
system to hand. The normal user cannot exercise a choice in this area.

But a failure to provide a tutorial on a particular text editor in
a LaTeX tutorial doesn't strike me as a particularly bad thing,
given that one assumes that the typical LaTeX tutorial is aimed as
`someone who can already use a computer', and given that any text
editor should have its own tutorial material.

Yes, but I think that this approach is suboptimal. My belief is
that the typical computer user -- and even the typical potential
LaTeX user -- doesn't understand the concept of a bunch of programs
that form something we call a "LaTeX system" (different TeX
compilers, editor, previewer, and a couple of other helper
applications).

I prefer not to work on the basis of faith, but by observation.

My observation is that most people understand almost nothing about
computers because no-one takes the trouble to explain anything much.
All it takes is an honest attempt to get the ideas across, and anyone
with half a brain can understand this sort of thing.

The Ubuntu concept of providing *exactly one* program per purpose is
also very sensible for LaTeX,

Not a good idea at all. `Exactly one program'? For each purpose? Who
defines `purpose'? Who selects the software to deal with each? What
happens when `purposes' have been left without `programs'? Or when
`programs' don't meet the `purposes' they are supposed to?

Nah, more diversity and less fanaticism are needed.

And software that deals with more than one thing is often useful.

especially for the editor question.

Not really. Most people /can't/ learn to use Emacs, AUCTeX, and so on -
I've tried to learn how to use Emacs+AUCTeX from the supplied
documentation, and I have failed. Emacs documentation is, on its own,
impossible for a normal person to get anywhere with as far as I can
tell. This is the big problem with a lot of Unix-side software:
documentation that is designed to exclude.

But tools like that are hugely powerful and useful for *some* - just not
the normal user, only the heavy-duty experts who are in a position to
learn from others of the same sort.

(When I used to use Emacs, I learnt by being taught by expert users who
had themselves been taught - the documentation alone is useless, as I
found out when I lost access to my helpful experts).

The point is that it makes sense to have multiple editors in particular
- just teach everyone on the simple one.

This should be realised at least in the introductory documentation.

Of course, every tutorial author can choose their favorite team of
programs. The only important thing is that the beginner gets the
impression of a complete system that still is not more complicated
than absolutely necessary.

I don't see that at all. A lot of the problems that people have with
computers comes from the fact that they're not told things honestly.
Giving people a false impression as you seem to be suggesting is
counterproductive.

The important thing is that the beginner understands what they need to
understand. In the case of LaTeX, this means that the beginner should
get the impression of an extensible suite of software - which has been
configured *thusly* for the purposes of this time&place.

[...]

Who's really insterested in breaking up ligatures?

<puzzled> There are some ligatures which TeX constructs
inappropriately. There are examples in the books of occasions on
which one must take charge or the results are awful. It's one of
the downsides of having the automation that TeX provides.

After the LaTeX forum I've followed over the last year, I don't
think that users are able to produce decent printouts anyway.

I know that you are wrong. Most users don't produce decent output, but
almost all have the potential to do so. This is the fault of their
education, training, and the software that they use.

Being able to produce decent output easily, without the user knowing
about typography, is why LaTeX exists - the idea is that LaTeX used
properly gives you good output.

If the users aren't getting good output, they need training and probably
need better software to use. Rather too much of LaTeX-as-is requires an
expert typographer in order to make proper use of it, and that's not the
point of having LaTeX if you ask me.

Therefore, leaving out all the typographical nitpicking lets LaTeX
look easier, which is more important in my opinion.

So you don't bother telling your users about `---' and why you might
sometimes want to follow a full stop with a `\ '?

As far as I can tell, learning to use LaTeX can't be done without
learning some typographical `nitpicking'.

Trying to simply things too much is a mistake. Don't hit 'em with the
full complexity (of course not - I don't understand the full complexity
and I'm pretty good with LaTeX), but do teach them enough so that they
can use LaTeX properly effectively to produce decent output.

Perfectionists
will find their way to the full story themselves.

The idea is that LaTeX should make nearly everyone produce very good
output.

What's most important is getting that good output, and the training
should direct people that way. So should any packages that are
provided.

Perfectionists are often frustrated by an inability to do what they want
- they don't always find their own way to the full story. Very often
these days it's impossible to do so in isolation, without a suitable
expert to talk to. A perfectionist will just walk away from a tool if
it proves too hard to figure out, or if it looks like it's no good.

So if you want hoi polloi producing decent output (and I do) and if you
want the perfectionists to go all the way (and I do), it's important to
give a *true impression* of LaTeX, rather than a falsely simplified one.

[...]

Additionally, there still is this huge amount of existing
documentation.

Indeed there is - what of it? It's very useful. It's available.

Sure. We need the complete documentation. We also need the
expert-friendly documentation. I just say that this makes it even
harder for beginners to find a good starting point.

I don't see that it makes any difference.

[...]

In the LaTeX forum that I follow at the moment, the question I
wait for is "how can I move all my "i" dots 0.2mm downwards?",
coming from people with no typographical knowledge. So the only
way is to prune the features of LaTeX itself, which is not
feasible either.

<puzzled> I do not understand this either. Surely the only
sensible solution to the age-old problem of idiots is the age-old
`just try to explain things to them, and if that doesn't work,
sigh and let them get on with it?'

The problem is: They are not idiots.

But they are, if they want to do that.

On the contrary.

Most people are idiots. You mentioned some people who have behaved very
stupidly, so what makes you think they're not idiots?

Instead,
they are the product of what you find about LaTeX on the Web and in
bookstores and libraries.

What I find about LaTeX on the Web and in bookshops and libraries is
what I've learnt about it, and nothing's ever given me an urge to lower
the dots over `i's by a particular amount using LaTeX, so I have to say
that you're definitely wrong on this one.

Again, as the unofficial LaTeX expert in
my institute, and as one of the regulars in the local user group, I
have *never* seen a preamble of a collegue or fellow student of
physics or engineering that was not overloaded, obsolete, and simply
incorrect.

I suspect that I'd disagree with your judgement if I saw the preambles
in question. An incorrect preamble will not run past LaTeX, so most of
them must have been correct.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: if equals in .sty files
    ... You might like to look at the ifthen package. ... It's part of the LaTeX ... you can typeset the documentation with "latex ... It's a macro programming language called TeX. ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: Drucken aus LaTeX Beamer
    ... %%% TeX File %%% ... \subsection{Overview of the Beamer Class} ... no redefinition of LaTeX internals ... Package hyperref Warning: ...
    (de.comp.text.tex)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?<2004-12-02>_Einf=FChrung_zu_de.comp.text.tex_und_der_FAQ?=
    ... Erläuterung von CTAN etwas erweitert ... TeX, zugehörigen Makropaketen (z.B. LaTeX) und Zusatzprogrammen. ... Wenn eine Anleitung Unklarheiten enthält, ...
    (de.comp.text.tex)
  • Re: Format building finding wrong hyphen.cfg file
    ... I'm putting together a list of kpsewhich invocations with an explanation ... When you say `LaTeX', what do you mean, exactly? ... A TeX engine with latex.fmt loaded. ... NAME is the abbreviation used in the kpsewhich documentation ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: The Problems of TeX
    ... turn down documentation that deliverately hides a lot of features ... In the LaTeX forum that I follow at the moment, ... the only way is to prune the features of LaTeX itself, ... I have no clue how to use TeX on any basis that would let me write ...
    (comp.text.tex)