Who were the opponents of Lisp?
in [Lisp]
|
From: Nicolas Neuss on 9 Apr 2010 05:00 m_mommer(a)yahoo.com (Mario S. Mommer) writes: > In my experience, writing directly to TeX or anything similar is > asking for trouble unless you are doing simple things. I guess everyone uses paper&pencil for working out new things. But after this initial step... > The source is not all that readable, To make sure: Do you use Emacs/AucTeX and do you use structuring commands like \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert} \newcommand{\set}[1]{\{#1\}} \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert} ? With that and a little discipline (using begin/end{displaymath} for example instead of $$) I can get quite readable source. > and the hardcopy looks too good. The result is that you do not see the > mistakes and the holes in the arguments. Taking a draft on paper and > cleaning it up by copying the non-strike-out to new a paper draft is > the only really good way to make sure you are really really really > going over every detail again. > > When I write maths, I do it on paper. When it is ready, I write it in > LaTeX, and that draft is already pretty close to the final product. > > Restructuring a decently sized latex document through copy and paste > is problematic, because there is no compiler (nor will there ever be) > to tell you that the semantics do not fit any longer. I did not encounter this problem so far. Nicolas
From: His kennyness on 9 Apr 2010 05:17 Nicolas Neuss wrote: > m_mommer(a)yahoo.com (Mario S. Mommer) writes: > >> In my experience, writing directly to TeX or anything similar is >> asking for trouble unless you are doing simple things. > > I guess everyone uses paper&pencil for working out new things. But > after this initial step... > >> The source is not all that readable, > > To make sure: Do you use Emacs/AucTeX and do you use structuring > commands like > > \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert} > \newcommand{\set}[1]{\{#1\}} > \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert} Yikes. Listen, this is silly, this is like people who say Emacs/Slime is a good way to develop sotware. It's not, it's just what you know. All youse guys is saying is that you lack the imagination needed to conceive anything other than what you know, including any other wysiwyg math editor than the ones you already know (such as retarded editors that have one forever pulling things out of palettes). Ironically, emacs is indeed a good example of how much one can get out of keychords once those are mastered. I suppose a fair question is whether one writes enough maths to master those keychords, but if one writes enough to get comfortable with TeX methinks that covers that. And with a decent editor one can use it for scratch work as well as final proof and get even better. Go ahead, dinosaurs, you hang on to the past, that's what yer good at! The rest of us will improve things. > > With that and a little discipline (using begin/end{displaymath} for > example instead of $$) I can get quite readable source. Oh, my. The denial! :) kt ps. What do the dinosaurs think of MathML? The typesetting, I mean.
From: Tamas K Papp on 9 Apr 2010 05:32 On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:17:58 -0400, His kennyness wrote: > Nicolas Neuss wrote: >> m_mommer(a)yahoo.com (Mario S. Mommer) writes: >> >>> In my experience, writing directly to TeX or anything similar is >>> asking for trouble unless you are doing simple things. >> >> I guess everyone uses paper&pencil for working out new things. But >> after this initial step... >> >>> The source is not all that readable, >> >> To make sure: Do you use Emacs/AucTeX and do you use structuring >> commands like >> >> \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert} >> \newcommand{\set}[1]{\{#1\}} >> \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert} > > Yikes. > > Listen, this is silly, this is like people who say Emacs/Slime is a good > way to develop sotware. It's not, it's just what you know. > > All youse guys is saying is that you lack the imagination needed to > conceive anything other than what you know, including any other wysiwyg > math editor than the ones you already know (such as retarded editors > that have one forever pulling things out of palettes). So where is the software developed by His Kennyness, Prince of Imagination, that dominates LaTeX+AUCTex+Emacs (or LaTeX+one's favorite environment) for typesetting math? > Go ahead, dinosaurs, you hang on to the past, that's what yer good at! > The rest of us will improve things. Sure. Let me know when it is ready. I am not holding my breath, though :-) Tamas
From: Tim Bradshaw on 9 Apr 2010 05:43 On 2010-04-09 10:17:58 +0100, His kennyness said: > ps. What do the dinosaurs think of MathML? The typesetting, I mean. Are there good systems that set type from it? The only thing I've played with is getting Mathematica to generate MathML (because I'm not about to type it in) and pointing Firefox at it, which produces terrible-looking results on screen (and I would expect on paper). But this is two levels of cruft - I bet Mathematica produces peculiar MathML and I don't expect Firefox is anything like a decent typesetting system. It looks much worse than jsMath though (but jsMath is pretty heroic really).
From: Tim Bradshaw on 9 Apr 2010 06:11
On 2010-04-09 08:32:59 +0100, Mario S. Mommer said: > In my experience, writing directly to TeX or anything similar is asking > for trouble unless you are doing simple things. The source is not all > that readable, and the hardcopy looks too good. The result is that you > do not see the mistakes and the holes in the arguments. Taking a draft > on paper and cleaning it up by copying the non-strike-out to new a paper > draft is the only really good way to make sure you are really really > really going over every detail again. I agree with this. I hand-write any maths I do (which is not much, though more than a few years ago) until I have a final (+/-) version. People obviously vary, but I find it hard to imagine a computing system which would allow me to do what I can with paper - my notes are typically full of scribbly little diagrams and written in some weird order with arrows connecting things. People have said I should use some kind of tablet thing, but as far as I can see this is just very expensive paper, since it adds no value (actually, I am thinking of playing with something to let me capture vector versions of the scribbly little pictures so I can embed them in later versions of things - trying to use some kind of proper diagamming tool is terribly laborious). |