Live data from Hacker News

The LaTeX cargo cult

joshparsons.net

31–40 of 134 posts

Re: The LaTeX cargo cult

#31

> LaTeX input files are a proprietary format. This is a really misleading statement, especially since it comes after him stating that "LaTeX is free in both senses". LaTeX input files apparently lack a standard specification, which is admittedly bad, but then again, so do the input files of many programming languages that some people on HN are writing on a daily basis[0]. This is not the same thing as them being prop…

By his definition, every document ever written in any DSL is in a propietary format.

Personally, I'm perfectly happy if I can open a document in a text editor and get the content that way. That obviously works perfectly fine with LaTeX, it doesn't work at all with doc.

Re: The LaTeX cargo cult

#32
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If .rtf/.doc is in such high demand, can't we output to those formats using LaTeX? I think of it as just another output alongside dvi/pdf/etc, but I know very little of the internals that would generate those additional formats.

It would be more rational to output to HTML5, since there are insane amounts of HTML to X converters around (APIs and tools alike). PDF or Doc from HTML is utterly trivial at this stage.

Math conversions tend to be lossy or involve rasterization (that inevitably ages poorly).

Re: The LaTeX cargo cult

#33
post #16

Good news for the OP: The OP seems to want more output options than just paper or PDF. It appears that the OP also wants HTML output. Okay. TeX and LaTeX say next to nothing about the final physical form of the document and, instead, leave all that to an appropriate device driver . Or, TeX (and likely LaTeX) puts out a file called device independent with three letter file name extension DVI. Basically a DVI file says…

There are latex to HTML converters and they only work for a subset of latex functionality. It is not as simple as defining a driver that outputs HTML.

Latex and HTML work in fundamentally different ways: latex typesets for a fixed paper size, and specifies its coordinates in physical dimensions. HTML is free flowing; if the user resizes the window the layout should adapt, they layout has to work on mobile devices, etc. The HTML way asks for a completely different way of designing layout, and Latex is simply not the right tool for that job.

Incidentally I believe that the Latex way of typesetting for a specific paper size is superior, because it allows the typesetter to manually arrange everything until it looks just right, whereas with HTML there are x number of browsers, with y number of screen sizes, and you have much less control over the final look.

Re: The LaTeX cargo cult

#34
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doc format is not documented, obviously.

The doc (and docx) formats are actually very well documented, thanks to pressure from the EU: [MS-DOC]: Word (.doc) Binary File Format http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/cc313153(v=of... [MS-DOCX]: Word Extensions to the Office Open XML (.docx) File Format http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd773189(v=office.12...

My understanding was that it'd be impossible to make a 100% compatible docx parser even of armed with those docs. As an example, when the EU forced the issue I remember seeing stories about XML fields which simply contained undocumented blobs

Re: The LaTeX cargo cult

#35
There are a few nice things about Latex for scientific publications:

1. It's style driven. I'm not sure how well you can do this is Word now. But in Latex it's pretty easy to reformat your document to match a journal or thesis style.

2. It's scriptable. I don't mean that it's Turing complete. But you can drive it with a Makefile. This is great for scientific publications I've found. You can script it such that Make will re-build you tools, re-run analysis, generate new figures, and then regenerate the article. This save a lot of time when you're iterating over a publication.

3. Well integrated reference management. Bibtex itself is a mess, but if you don't need to alter the reference format, it works well.

4. Equations!

I think it's probably overkill for what he's doing. Sounds like Markdown + a reference manager would be fine for him. But for a lot of scientific publications it has handy features. I too would like to find something else, but I've not seen anything.

I guess you could write everything in HTML! But it's obviously not well suited to this application.

Re: The LaTeX cargo cult

#38

The biggest advantage of latex is that by (mostly) separating content from presentation, you can use revision control systems like git or svn to collaborate on papers. You can be in that final hour before the paper submission deadline, on a skype call with four authors scattered around the world, all simultaneously editing the paper (each using whatever tools they prefer), and be reasonably confident it won't all end…

Isn't this also a feature of ASCII-based markup languages, which the author suggests as the right alternative to LaTeX?

Re: The LaTeX cargo cult

#39
As much as I like LaTeX, I think it has outlived its usefulness. Let me elaborate a bit...

LaTeX is pretty good for typesetting lots of text, like novels, if you want to output something that looks professional without much effort. It's also good for typesetting lots of mathematical formulas, as the GUI alternatives are pretty tedious to use and the result doesn't look as good.

It's also interesting as a template language, to produce documents from applications, but here's where it starts to become obsolete: there are a lot of alternatives to do this that don't force the person creating the templates to be technically-inclined and having to learn LaTeX.

Also, LaTeX becomes downright irritating when trying to make complex documents. The rules say you let LaTeX choose the looks of your document, while you focus on content, but it's impossible not to spend hours fighting it because it's not breaking pages or placing figures where we want it to (and iterating over this endlessly as the document is modified). You just cannot force yourself to let LaTeX do everything by itself.

So, it's useful for novels (which might as well be written in plain text and let the publisher do the typesetting) or documents with a lot of maths (which are nowadays most likely also complex documents that cannot go without human intervention to look good.)

I like LaTeX for the technical aspect of it, but in the end it's just a tool do accomplish some goal and, sorry, but Word doesn't consume that much resources anymore on a modern machine...

Re: The LaTeX cargo cult

#40
post #35

There are a few nice things about Latex for scientific publications: 1. It's style driven. I'm not sure how well you can do this is Word now. But in Latex it's pretty easy to reformat your document to match a journal or thesis style. 2. It's scriptable. I don't mean that it's Turing complete. But you can drive it with a Makefile. This is great for scientific publications I've found. You can script it such that Make w…

A footnote to your 2nd point: LaTeX actually is Turing complete. (You can find a Turing machine implemented in LaTeX at http://en.literateprograms.org/Turing_machine_simulator_%28L... .) As far as I know, this feature is more amusing than useful.
Post reply on HN