Re: [9fans] Many bugs in eqn(1)

[Rudolf Sykora <rudolf.sykora@gmail.com>]

On 13 August 2014 14:16, Carsten Kunze <carsten.kunze@arcor.de> wrote:
>> >> http://9fans.net/archive/?q=sykora+eqn&go=Grep
>> >
>> > I can't believe that TeX should not produce better results, but
>> > thats really OT...
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean.
>
> I refer to http://9fans.net/archive/2011/12/113.  I would expect
> TeX to produce the best math results.  But this should not be
> discussed here.

Still I don't get what you mean. In that message we say
1) quality of TeX typesetting is better,
2) the way the equation is written (the syntax) in eqn feels
better to me.


>> And it is not only about producing good documents meaning
>> good-looking. It's about scalability and readability, too.
>> Nobody would tell you LaTeX is readable. PlainTeX is, but
>> by itself, it doesn't know much (like plain troff).
>
> I would completely disagree :)
> LaTeX is very good readable (IMO better than e.g. troff -ms),
> PlainTeX is totally unreadable to me (I'v used it for a longer time.)

Just to be sure. I don't mean readability of documents to be typeset.
I mean the source code of the whole system. I.e., in the case of LaTeX,
the readability/understanding/hackability of the macros' definitions.

R