Latex, Mathematica, and journals
in [Mathematica]
|
Prev: = {f[a, b], g[c,
Next: Code optimization
From: Nasser M. Abbasi on 18 May 2010 06:13 "Murray Eisenberg" <murray(a)math.umass.edu> wrote in message news:hsr890$bda$1(a)smc.vnet.net... > > For Windows, too, there's the proprietary BaKoMa system, which provides > essentially synchronized viewing of source as you typeset and even > allows you to type text directly into the viewer window. Aside from LyX, > this is probably the closest you can come today to WYSIWYG for LaTEX. > Scientific Word is all GUI front end to Latex. You do not need to even know any latex to use. Its been around since 1992. One thing I really like about it, is that it includes a symbolic engine inside it. I can select an expression in the screen, and then select the operation I want to do on the expression, then the result is computed and output comes out right there where I have the mouse pointed after the expression is, and I can then use this result and continue typing. It is in a way a Mathematica in reverse. Mathematica is a symbolic engine first, and typesetting second, while Scientific word is typesetting first, and symbolic algebra second. --Nasser
From: AES on 19 May 2010 07:00 In article <hstp6f$mbs$1(a)smc.vnet.net>, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz(a)mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: > On 18 May 2010, at 15:01, AES wrote: > > >> > >> [However}, there seems to have been no further > >> development of Textures in the last few years, ... > > > > Textures, sadly, appears to be dead. > > > Both of these assertions are not true (or at least not unquestionably so): > > http://www.bluesky.com/news/220b.html > > Andrzej Kozlowski Maybe (hopefully) not true; I did say "seems to be . . . ".. But note the dates of the beta (only) versions mentioned on that page: 2.2.0b Copyright 2008 2.2.0b5 25 Dec 2007 2.2.0b12 10 Sept 09 And the page itself -- quite crudely done -- has hardly changed in all that time. Not an encouraging pace of development, for something that's going to have to be a very sophisticated piece of software to be successful. I monitored the page monthly for quite a while; eventually gave up on looking at it maybe a year ago.
From: DC on 19 May 2010 07:01 Maybe a bit old fashioned, but the combination emacs+auctex is another (free) solution. http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/ -Francesco On 05/16/2010 10:56 AM, S. B. Gray wrote: > Can anyone tell me why there is no WYSIWYG interface for Latex? > Any time I want to publish a paper I have to relearn it again, since I > publish rarely. > > I would gladly use MS Word if the math journals would accept it. > > And is there any movement to accepting Mathematica output, properly formatted? > > Steve Gray >
From: Murray Eisenberg on 19 May 2010 07:02 But, alas, not OUR "symbolic engine"! On 5/18/2010 6:13 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > "Murray Eisenberg"<murray(a)math.umass.edu> wrote in message > news:hsr890$bda$1(a)smc.vnet.net... > >> >> For Windows, too, there's the proprietary BaKoMa system, which provides >> essentially synchronized viewing of source as you typeset and even >> allows you to type text directly into the viewer window. Aside from LyX, >> this is probably the closest you can come today to WYSIWYG for LaTEX. >> > > Scientific Word is all GUI front end to Latex. You do not need to even know > any latex to use. Its been around since 1992. > > One thing I really like about it, is that it includes a symbolic engine > inside it. I can select an expression in the screen, and then select the > operation I want to do on the expression, then the result is computed and > output comes out right there where I have the mouse pointed after the > expression is, and I can then use this result and continue typing. It is in > a way a Mathematica in reverse. Mathematica is a symbolic engine first, > and typesetting second, while Scientific word is typesetting first, and > symbolic algebra second. > > --Nasser > > > -- Murray Eisenberg murray(a)math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305
From: Andrzej Kozlowski on 19 May 2010 20:11
On 19 May 2010, at 20:00, AES wrote: > In article <hstp6f$mbs$1(a)smc.vnet.net>, > Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz(a)mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: > >> On 18 May 2010, at 15:01, AES wrote: >> >>>> >>>> [However}, there seems to have been no further >>>> development of Textures in the last few years, ... >>> >>> Textures, sadly, appears to be dead. >> >> >> Both of these assertions are not true (or at least not unquestionably so): >> >> http://www.bluesky.com/news/220b.html >> >> Andrzej Kozlowski > > Maybe (hopefully) not true; I did say "seems to be . . . ".. > > But note the dates of the beta (only) versions mentioned on that page: > > 2.2.0b Copyright 2008 > > 2.2.0b5 25 Dec 2007 > > 2.2.0b12 10 Sept 09 > > And the page itself -- quite crudely done -- has hardly changed in all > that time. > > Not an encouraging pace of development, for something that's going to > have to be a very sophisticated piece of software to be successful. I > monitored the page monthly for quite a while; eventually gave up on > looking at it maybe a year ago. > I agree that this is weird, in fact perhaps the strangest case of this kind I have come across. On the one hand: to be commercially viable (at least at the sort of price they seem to want to charge for it) Textures will have to be a lot better than programs like Texshop or Lyx, which are free. A this point it isn't even as good as the free alternatives. On the other hand, someone is clearly continuing to work on it, albeit slowly. They are even trying to charge for the latest beta: only version 2.2.0b5 is free to classic Textures owners (like myself). That version is obviously not good enough to compete with TexShop. What makes it even more weird is that, if I remember correctly, Richard Koch, the author of TexShop, offered free use of his program to the Textures developers but his offer was ignored. And the text editor is the weakest part of Textures right now. It is hard to imagine that anyone would be wasting so much time developing a program of this kind while thinking of the situation as essentially hopeless. It's equally hard to imagine that the developers do not realise the magnitude of the task facing them. One is tempted to think that they really must have something up their sleeve. But if they do they are certainly good at keeping secrets... Andrzej Kozlowski |