NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/sys/next/software/3044

Text File | 1992-12-12 | 4.0 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.software
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!scl1.al.iastate.edu!tlm
From: [e-mail] (Tom Marchioro)
Subject: Re: NeXT Word Processors - Junk, garbage, and more junk...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:25:18 GMT
Lines: 63

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Scott) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Ivo Welch) writes:

>> ... TeX: ...  TeX is very mediocre for tables. ...

>I guess I'm not quite clear on what you mean by mediocre here.
>If you mean difficult to use, then I agree with you. But if you
>mean that the quality of the table is poor or that there is not
>enough flexibility in the table format then I must disagree. In
>fact, I find tables in TeX to be a thing of beauty. I notice
>that you say you do your work in LaTeX and this could account
>for the disagreement. Tables made in LaTeX using the tabular
>environment are easier to generate---but not so nice looking. I
>wish that I knew of some *easy* way to get tables as nice as I
>get in TeX!

I hadn't meant to start a WP flame war when I questioned the "manhood" of
Frame versus TeX, just meant that starting from scratch something that is
extremely good and *free* (plus several free utilities which work with it)
seems better than something you have to pay significant $ for (and I consider
anything > $100 significant, but not necessarily exorbitant).  Several
follow-ups have accurately pointed out some of the relative advantages of
FM, and I think it all boils down to what features in a word processor
matter to you most.  That's why people argue so vehemently about them
(or, to get into real religious wars, talk text editors [Hi Erik:-] )
Frame is certainly better if you're a WYSIWYG fan --- though people's
insistence on this usually leaves me puzzled, and between LoTeX and
Equation Builder you can easily preview 99% of what your doing instantaneously
--- and is also far easier to use for tables.  Perhaps it's because
WYSIWYG doesn't matter so much to me, or because I don't often use tables
--- I do write *very* mathematical papers, and the Frame equation editor
is simply not up to the task --- that I prefer one ot the other.

In any event, to each his own.  Arguing about such issues generates much
heat but little light.

As for "good tables in TeX" the best thing I can recommend is to create
2 or 3 you really like the look of and then save the file as a template
(I have a couple like this myself).  This ability to make building blocks
is one of the beauties of TeX (in particular plain TeX, if I had to choose
between LaTeX and FM it would be a close call).  I recommend anyone thinking
of going to TeX start out with the plain format (or, better yet, get
Karl Berry's e-plain, which adds most of the functionality of LaTeX without
all the restrictive garbage) and over time build up a set of macros to
suit your own tastes --- for example, I can't even remember the commands
to include a Postscript figure in a TeX document because I have a macro that
takes the filename as its first argument, the size as the second, and the
caption as the third.  The point is, I didn't write this macro until I'd
done enough TeXing to be sure it was what I wanted from a stylistic point
of view.  Something similar can certainly be done with tables, though
it isn't going to be as straightforward as with including a figure.

Oh..... another little hint:  about the only time I use LaTeX is to make
simple tables in the "tabular" environment (which is very simple). Make
the table, then use the new TeXview service to drive it to an EPS file
which you can then include in a plain TeX document anyway you like (with
PS TeX fonts you can even resize it at will).

Hmm.... seem to have wandered off the subject.......

Tom