NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/text/tex/15262

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 8.4 KB | 186 lines

Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!netfs!dres.dnd.ca!vaitken
From: [e-mail] (Vic Aitken)
Subject: FrameMaker vs TeX: Summary
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: FrameMaker
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: aragorn
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Defence Research Establishment Suffield
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:34:40 GMT
Lines: 172

Hi All:

  In article <[e-mail]> I asked:

>  A few weeks ago, someone posted an article asking about Frame-to-TeX
>conversion or vs vs. I am and have been for some time a TeX (LaTeX)
>user. I have recently received product information on FrameMaker.
>I would like to receive some comments from people who have used/
>are using FrameMaker, particularly in comparison to the capabilities
>of TeX for technical/scientific/mathematical document preparation.
>Any comparison to other document preparation software with HyperText
>capabilities would also be of interest.

  Thanks to all who replied. One person was kind enough to point out
that there is a comp.text.frame newsgroup that I was unaware of. Because
the above question was posted to comp.text.tex only, I probably
should have expected the replies to be slightly biased towards
(La)TeX, whereas if I had posted this question to comp.text.frame,
I might have observed the opposite. In any event, the following is
a summary of replies I received. These comments are the opinions of
those who replied--*not mine*, since I really don't know enough about
FrameMaker (yet) to comment.

Replies were received from:

  <[e-mail]>            (Tad K. Mannes)
  <[e-mail]>            (Peter de Waal)
  <[e-mail]>               (C.J. Fox)
  <[e-mail]>  (N Tomczak-Jaegermann)
  <[e-mail]>                   (Fred S. Brundick)
  <[e-mail]>         (Lennart J|relid)
  (and one who wishes to remain anonymous, J)

Comments received on FrameMaker vs (La)TeX:

1)  Ease of Use:

  "FrameMaker has a much smoother way of accomplishing things - the main
  disadvantage of TeX is it's complexity. BUT - the complexity means
  flexibility and more options, although some (most) of them are used
  infrequently enough to question the justification of their existence.
  WYSIWYG (which means quicker feedback & handling) is the main advantage
  of FrameMaker."

  "...once [FrameMaker] is setup it will be easier for other people to
  learn and use than LaTeX."

 "FrameMaker is very convenient if you want to make documents or letters
  that do not contain mathematical formulas."

  "...[FrameMaker] is not as simple as point and click for anything other
  than the simplest manipulations.  You will need to reference at least two
  of the manuals on a fairly regular basis during your setup and learning
  phase."

2) Visual Formatting:

  "...the main benefit of FrameMaker is that it is easier to do
  anything that requires visual formatting, such as diagrams.  This is
  possible with TeX and a drawing package like Xfig, but including TeX
  math symbols in complex diagrams can be a pain."

  "If you are preparing an advertising copy of few pages with a flashy
  layout and you need visual control of page while you work, then use
  FrameMaker."

  "...getting complicated layouts in TeX can be a job for an expert.
  Similar stuff in FrameMaker will likely be of a poorer quality, but
  will be doable by a relative novice."

  "...[FrameMaker] forces the user to do a lot of the actual formatting.
  It may be easier to learn, but the user is doing much more work."

  "Some people have complained about LaTeX's lack of graphics, ...
  With xfig and EPS support I can print most anything with LaTeX...
  While [FrameMaker's graphics editor] is similar to xfig (MacPaint,
  whatever) with a bunch of object icons, you are constantly selecting
  objects. For example, to draw 3 circles in xfig...you would click on the
  circle icon and then click in the drawing area to create 3 circles.
  [FrameMaker] resets the selection each time, so you must select circle,
  draw, select, draw, select, draw."

3) Mathematical Formatting Capabilities:

  "If you use conventional math notation, then FrameMaker's equation
  builder is quite nice, but for much of my work I found it too strict
  on syntax, and it does not have a lot of the symbols I need."

  "If you are preparing documents which need a consistent high-quality
  typesetting across many pages and if they are moderate to heavy
  in use of mathematical formulas, use TeX."

  "The biggest drawback of FrameMaker is the bad quality of the mathematical
  formulas. TeX makes a much better job of centering \sum subscripts for
  instance, or choosing appropriate fontsizes for subsubscripts..."

  "FrameMaker...has a very stubborn opinion on what formulas are made of.
  It is, for instance, impossible to put a \Rightarrow without parentheses.
  FrameMaker thinks that an implication should be written as (xxx  =>  yyy)
  so for input you first have to select or type in the code for this kind of
  expression, and then fill in the xxx and yyy. There is NO way to get rid
  of the parentheses."

  "The method [FrameMaker] uses to write equations drove me screaming
  down the hall. You have to select the equation a portion at a time.
  It's hard to describe, but imagine $\sum_{i=1}^{x^2+37} y_i$. You
  would select something that looks like $\sum_?^?$ (but expanded like
  a dvi file), then replace the subscript ? with ?=? and edit both ?s.
  Likewise the upper limit would be replaced with ?^?+?, etc. You kind
  of recurse, replacing each ? with text or another expression
  containing ?s.  And there is very little control over sizes and I
  found no way to tweak the spacing. Yes, it works, and you don't have
  to learn what '_' and '^' and '\sum' mean, but...what a painful process!"

4) Bibliographies:

  "FrameMaker does not have the ability to build bibliographies."

5) General:

  "[One] reason for going with FrameMaker [is that] Frame is supported
  by the vendor whereas LaTeX is not really supported by anyone and is
  kind of a specialty."

  "I use FrameMaker for quick letters, slides (overhead transparencies),
  and whenever I'm working with other people on the same document."

  "If you like WYSIWYG, [FrameMaker] is a good deal for the price; if you
  don't mind programming or [if you] work with a lot of math, stick with
  LaTeX and get a good previewer."

  "FrameMaker is no where near as flexible as LaTeX."

  "...to use [FrameMaker] without trouble you need lots of memory. When
  I used it on a 8M Sun Sparcstation, its display could not keep up with my
  typing, and I'm not exactly the world's fastest typist. It's better now
  on my 32M SGI Indigo :-)."

  "Frame starts to disintegrate with a size of documents."

  "WYSIWYG systems like FrameMaker drive me nuts. I don't want to wait for
  a paragraph to be reformatted, I just want to write."

  "...I found the requirements of WYSIWYG intrusive: for example, paragraph
  and character styles have to be set by using the mouse, which I found
  interrupted my chain of thought when entering text. The automatic
  renumbering of equations and sections etc. would often lead to delays,
  as did screen redraws. This was bad on a Sun 3/60, and still a bit
  intrusive on a Sparc station."

  "In the comp.text.frame faq, there is a reference for la2mml, which
  converts LaTeX to MML (Maker Markup Language) reasonably well. I don't
  know of anything which would go the other way."

In summary, most of the comments supported FrameMaker in preparing
documents which required complicated visual formatting, were not too
large, were written by more than one author, and/or did not require
complicated mathematical formulas. However, for technical/scientific/
mathematical document preparation which require significant flexibility
in composition of formulas and equations, for consistent high-quality
typesetting across many pages, or for those who find a WYSIWYG
environment to be distracting and often too slow, then (La)TeX
was preferred. No one made any comments concerning FrameMaker's
HyperText capabilities--something that I personally was interested in.

Thanks again to all who replied.

--
Vic Aitken, [e-mail], [phone],
Defence Research Establishment Suffield (DRES)
Box 4000, Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, T1A 8K6
(OPINIONS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF DRES)