Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Modern LaTeX Replacement?

Posted by kdawson on Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:02 PM
from the hardly-seems-like-too-much-to-ask dept.
javierzinho writes "For many years I have been using LaTeX to compose scientific documents, but truly I am getting tired of its complexity. You have to install new packages for new features, compatibility issues are everywhere, you need to know commands for everything, table composition is torture, image insertion is an odyssey if you don't have the 'right' format, and you need to be a LaTeX Jedi master to create a new document class. I'm looking for a document processor (not a word processor) that is a viable replacement for LaTeX, possessing all of its advantages — consistency between text and math text, automated cross references, direct PDF creation, etc. — but that is not stuck in the 1980s with the compiler metaphor and weird font technology. An application with visual interface and so on. I've tried Scientific Word and Lyx but both are front-ends for LaTeX. Publicon only produces PDF files by exporting to LaTeX and subsequently using pdflatex. Add-ons for MS-Word are a joke, and webEq is intended for web publishing, not for PDF production. Does anybody know of a decent, scientific-structured document processor that is a modern application?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Firehose:Stick to LaTeX by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Adobe (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2008, @10:07PM (#24379035)

    Framemaker?

    • Re:Adobe (Score:5, Informative)

      by DrDitto (962751) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:25PM (#24379277)
      Framemaker is essentially a deprecated product with little further development. All maintenance has been outsourced to India. The UNIX version has gone completely downhill with the most recent versions. The Windows version is still usable, but the GUI is stuck in the 80s with no replacement coming. That said, I think Framemaker is one of the best document creation tools I've ever used.
  • lout (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2008, @10:12PM (#24379101)

    http://lout.wiki.sourceforge.net/FAQ

  • Top 1% of 1% (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:14PM (#24379133)

    Remember, when you're doing highly technical writing like that, you're literally out at [or beyond] the top 1% of 1%.

    The sad truth of the matter is that the servicing of highly technical writers just isn't a very big market [and, barring something like artificial manipulation of the genome, will NEVER amount to a very big market], and you're gonna be lucky if anyone bothers to release a product for it.

    Heck, we mathies ought to count our lucky stars that Knuth ever took the time to design TeX in the first place.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2008, @10:15PM (#24379137)

    I find this funny that I just learned LaTeX two weeks ago. I ported my entire thesis over to LaTeX and have had nothing but professional and consistent results.

    What's the problem with it, again? It doesn't have a fancy GUI? It works great for me.

  • by frederec (911880) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:15PM (#24379147)
    I can't help but question the complaints on the complexity. I generally have a repertoire of packages that I use frequently like the ams packages, pstricks for image drawing, beamer for powerpoint-like presentations, and the external program image magic to make pictures the correct format.

    Using other packages periodically tends to not have too many conflicts, except when trying to conform to required document classes of certain journals. But the workarounds generally don't take too much time.

    I have yet to find something as robust as LaTeX, yet relatively user-friendly. Then again, I've never tried to create my own document class, merely modified what is already there. That always seemed to be the domain of the nuts-and-bolts programmers rather than the people who just want a typsetting language. So my idea of "user-friendly" may be a little skewed.
  • by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:17PM (#24379181)
    PlAsTiC?
  • Any replacement for LaTeX that intends to do most of the same things is pretty much doomed to be markup language, even if you dump XML pixie dust on it. XML after all is just a horrible human unreadable markup language itself.

    So once one accepts that the question simplifies to can LaTeX be replaced with something more usable by humans. First off the font system is purely a legacy thing, since Tex predates pretty much all other currently popular font tech. So could LaTeX be retrofitted to use TrueType for everything? Probably. In a 100% backwards compatible way? Only if a genius pulls a freaking miracle out of his butt.

    If someone were to do a total rethink/rewrite, and if said person were a genius on the level with Knuth, then by making use of what we know today a new and better typesetting system could probably be created. Getting everyone to agree on anything else would be the biggest problem.

    • by mdmkolbe (944892) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:45PM (#24379527)

      What sets TeX apart from other formatting systems is that it has a mathematical foundation. At it's core, TeX has a metric for how "good" a document looks and formats it to optimize that metric. Someone who wants to make a better TeX will have to have a thorough understanding of the math behind it (e.g. some "goodness" metrics are known to be NP-hard). See "Knuth-Pass line breaking" for just the tip of the iceberg on this.

      So, yes, it will take someone who is a wiz at math, computer science and user interfaces (?) to overthrow TeX.

  • by digitalderbs (718388) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:23PM (#24379249)
    Having used LaTeX to typeset my dissertation, I share these concerns about LaTeX. The documents it produces are beautifully typeset and look great -- especially for math. The notion that the writer is agnostic of the typesetting procedure and methods with LaTeX is a complete lie. I've never had to worry about ratios, measurements, indentations, word-per-line, empty pages and other problems as I have in LaTex. LaTeX submissions to journals are becoming less and less available -- in physical chemistry and chemistry journals at least.

    There is a large and important market for high-quality typesetting software with excellent math functionality. More importantly, something which interfaces with bibliographic software well, and produces high quality PDFs. (Bibtex does a decent enough job, but I find that it's plagued by the same problems as LaTeX.)

    I've searched for an alternative as well, and I'm quite sure that none exist. I haven't seen other type setting documentation formats for journal submissions, which I think is an important hint.
  • by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:24PM (#24379257)

    I understand your qualms with LaTeX as a long time user, but given the alternatives I find it better (though word processors are easier to use, LaTeX makes things much prettier).

    A word processor front end (let's pick Open Office Writer as an example) with a LaTeX backend would be a good mix, but also give you the downside of WPs, namely constant layout fiddling instead of focussing on content.

    I don't quite understand your complaint about the way LaTeX is structured wrt packages. It's pretty much the same thing you see with Firefox where you have a core program with lots of useful plug-ins for added functionality, and as such it's the same argument as it has.

  • by KingVidalia (997901) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:35PM (#24379407)
    It is LaTex, but made easy. Made very easy. It's managed by a co-worker and friend of mine, so I may be biased. But he's done some exceptional work with it (including many internal manuals here at Red Hat). So check it out. He is a big KDE fan, so it's made the transition to QT 4 recently and it looks fabulous. http://www.99b.org/wyneken/ [99b.org]
  • by NoobixCube (1133473) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:42PM (#24379479) Journal
    What is it about LaTeX that makes it so special? Can't scientific documents be laid out correctly in a word processor? I ask out of ignorance, not rhetoric.
  • by mrroot (543673) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:56PM (#24379641)
    The next thing you know someone will ask for a replacement for vi.
    • Re:OpenOffice.org (Score:5, Insightful)

      by edalytical (671270) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:26PM (#24379287) Homepage Journal

      Anyone weigh in?

      Sure. That's not even close to what this guy is looking for. LaTeX is to printed publications (or PDFs) as HTML is to a webpage. He's not looking for a program for changing fonts in a GUI. He's looking for a modern way to typeset documents kind of like going from HTML table layouts to CSS layouts. Where is badanalogyguy when you need him?

      • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:28PM (#24379315)

        Well what's the replacement? Word/Writer are garbage for writing research papers or theses, so what else is there?

        PowerPoint, of course. To handle the math expressions, just use Comic Sans. That makes it look like the math problems were solved with a pencil, the way a real mathematician would do it.

        • by Ice Wewe (936718) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:31PM (#24379347)

          It's called typesetting and, unfortunately, LaTeX is still the freakin' best.

          What do you mean by "unfortunately"?

          Unfortunately no software since [LaTeX] has come close to the feature-set and quality of LaTeX.

        • by RobBebop (947356) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:36PM (#24379417) Homepage Journal

          I've taken a couple of stabs at LaTeX through the years. I have no real need for a proper type-setting platform like LaTeX because I am not in the world of academia that demands it, so I was never able to get past the learning curve imposed by LaTeX.

          Now, let me say... I get it. I understand how invaluable it is to submit a paper in a format so less time can be wasted "making it pretty" and more can be spent on the meat of the work. That fact doesn't elude me.

          What I never figured out was how to download a stinking template from IEEE and start writing a document. I never figured out how to compose my own document type so I could use it to empower the written arts that I am interested in. I never got past the hurdle, so to this day I still use OpenOffice Writer as my word processor and haven't been able to "transcend" to a proper type-setting program so make all the boring formatting tasks easy.

          I even read the LaTeX Wikibook [wikibooks.org] a number of months ago and this didn't even get me over the hump on my way to publication.

          So, I echo the sentiments of the article submitter. LaTeX is hard, and either better documentation or a better alternative is needed to make it accessible to the rest of us.

          • by pherthyl (445706) on Monday July 28 2008, @10:45PM (#24379523)

            Well its not that bad.. Sure making your own document class is pretty much impossible if you have a life, but using existing ones is pretty easy. Go to the conference you want to submit to, download their latex template and put your content into their sample file. That's all there is to it.

            But I really only use latex for the stuff where exact formatting is critical and a template exists. Sure there are tools that let you use Latex for presentations, but it doesn't seem worth it for a presentation where the format is pretty much free form. You just end up with boring cookie cutter presentations.

    • So tell the AAAS that... http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/docx.dtl [sciencemag.org] "Because of changes Microsoft has made in its recent Word release that are incompatible with our internal workflow, which was built around previous versions of the software, Science cannot at present accept any files in the new .docx format produced through Microsoft Word 2007, either for initial submission or for revision. Users of this release of Word should convert these files to a format compatible with Word 2003 or Word for Macintosh 2004 (or, for initial submission, to a PDF file) before submitting to Science. Users of Word 2007 should also be aware that equations created with the default equation editor included in Microsoft Word 2007 will be unacceptable in revision, even if the file is converted to a format compatible with earlier versions of Word; this is because conversion will render equations as graphics and prevent electronic printing of equations. Regrettably, we will be forced to return any revised manuscript created with the Word 2007 default equation editor to authors for re-editing. To get around this, please use the MathType equation editor or the legacy equation editor included in previous versions of Microsoft Word, which can be accessed from "Insert Object" from the "Insert" ribbon in Word 2007." Um... I don't think Word is an answer
    • by rmcd (53236) * on Monday July 28 2008, @10:51PM (#24379597)

      I use both Word (2007) and LaTeX. I think you're completely and utterly wrong, and I note the complete lack of specifics in your post. Just consider this entry [msdn.com] from the Microsoft Office Team Blog. Create a 3 column table to number an equation! You've got to be kidding me.

      Layer on top of this the fact that in Office 2007 Microsoft has created a totally new equation editor that isn't compatible with its old editor. How long will this one last? Maybe they're finally turning Word into a capable, consistent tool, but it will take several more versions to be sure.

      Making complicated tables in LaTeX is a pain, I'll grant that. But why don't you tell us exactly what it is that makes the latest version of Word such a capable tool for creating lengthy, cross-referenced, equation-laden documents.