|
|
Dik T. Winter wrote:
> In article <1156978329.846377.188470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Peter T.
> Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> ...
> > > Does it need to? Any text editor, including Word, can be used to edit
> > > text.
> >
> > But, as you-all inform me, much of the "text" gotten from LaTeX will be
> > control codes and other such programming.
>
> There is a basic difference between a word-processor and TeX/LaTeX. And
> that is what makes converting one to the other so difficult. In a
> word-processor you do the layout by hand, look at your screen whether
> it is good enough, and that is that. When printing it at a resolution
> much higher than your screen resolution, sometimes the results can be
> pretty bad.
>
> On the other hand, TeX/LaTeX is a typesetting language. You tell it
Then why are they-all (are you?) advocating using it for word
processing?
> how the document should look and it will look like you told it once
> printed. It may look horrible when you preview it on a windowing
> system that does not know about anti-aliassing, but once printed it
> looks good. There is even no problem get out of it A3 or A2 posters
> just as you wanted (but your preview will always be pretty bad).
>
> D. E. Knuth has typeset quite a few books with this system. (Although
> I still think his Computer Modern font is horrible.)
Isn't that an astonishing paradox? He puts decades of work into this
"typesetting" system but the default font is one of the worst text
types ever designed. He even sponsors calligraphy exhibits (but doesn't
show any of his own), so you'd think he'd know better, or at least have
some sensitivity to the matter.
And he doesn't have exactly the best advocate in Merritt Ruhlen.
|
|