(La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

(La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

[Jorge Vilhena]

Hello TeX Friends

I'm new to the world of TeX and I've one question that I would like someone
to answer me. Here it is.
What is the main differences between LaTeX and ConTeX, and what was the goal
in ConTeX creation?
I want to write my master thesis which has lots of figures, tables and
formulas with one of them, but I don't know which should I use. Could
someone give me some hints?

___________
Regards

Jorge Vilhena
Portugal

Re: (La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

[Gilbert van den Dobbelsteen]

----- Original Message -----
From: Jorge Vilhena <jvilhena@est.ips.pt>
To: <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
Sent: woensdag 19 januari 2000 2:00
Subject: (La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

> Hello TeX Friends
>
> I'm new to the world of TeX and I've one question that I would like
someone
> to answer me. Here it is.
> What is the main differences between LaTeX and ConTeX, and what was the
goal
> in ConTeX creation?

Perhaps Taco can answer this much better than I can but let's give it a try.
If you want a stable macro-package that has decent features and is not to
complicatied, you should choose LaTeX 2.09 (this is old). If you want a
package that doesn't change a lot you could use LaTeXe (the newer LaTeX),
and if you want state-of-the-art, you could use ConTeXt

LaTex has many, many packages, and many usefull features and stuff. Since
these packages are written by different users, they usually do not work well
together (if the thing they do is similar). In practice you wouldn't notice
that. LaTeX also has a lot of users, so asking some questions and getting
the answers is usually easier, especially if there is a package that
supports your question.

ConTeXt is a sort of next generation stuff. It is pretty new, and can do
pretty advanced stuff. Some of the features:

Figure support: .eps, .png, .jpeg .pdf. If you have .eps files and you are
using pdftex, you'll need to convert the figures to pdf first. Ghostscript
can do that for you, but in my experience Acrobat Distiller does a better
job. The other formats are directly supported. The figure mechanism is
advanced and I am sure it is better than what LaTeX has to offer here.

Tables: This is simply better than in LaTeX.

Formula's: Currenty there is a math module, written by Taco, but I am not
sure what the status is. If your fomulas are in plainTeX then there is no
problem at all, ConTeXt supports all plain TeX stuff (in fact ConTeXt
supports plain TeX better than LaTeX does).

Bibliography: This is in the works, and Taco wrote a bib-tex module.

Furthermore: ConTeXt let's you easily create your own sectioning mechanism.
LaTeX is more restricted in this.

ConTeXt has a greater learning curve since you'll have to find out many
things by yourself (though the members of this list are eager to help and
support you). I found the learning curve to be very rewarding. if you have a
lot of LaTex friends, you can see the diference after a while. ConTeXt
simply makes more sense.

ConTeXt is also much more advanced if it comes to interaction, and
references (the: see figure XXX on page YYY stuff). If you use pdf as a
output-format things are made automagically clickable, and so on.

ConText also has better support for page-re-arranging, multiple table-of
contents, multiple indices, multiple paragraph levels while in LaTeX you are
always stuck with \section \subsection stuff.

Best thing for you to do is look at the manuals. There is a decent beginners
guide which is pretty down-the-drain. There is a reference guide (currently
partly in English, thogh much can be learned from the Dutch manual (even if
you don't know Dutch)).

ConTeXt is also more futurisic, while LaTeX tends to be more old-fashioned
(Don't know if that's what you're looking for).

Changing the layout of your document is usually much easier in ConTeXt.

Gilbert.

Re: (La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

[Gilbert van den Dobbelsteen]

----- Original Message -----
From: Jorge Vilhena <jvilhena@est.ips.pt>
To: <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
Sent: woensdag 19 januari 2000 2:00
Subject: (La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

> Hello TeX Friends
>
> I'm new to the world of TeX and I've one question that I would like
someone
> to answer me. Here it is.
> What is the main differences between LaTeX and ConTeX, and what was the
goal
> in ConTeX creation?

Perhaps Taco can answer this much better than I can but let's give it a try.
If you want a stable macro-package that has decent features and is not to
complicatied, you should choose LaTeX 2.09 (this is old). If you want a
package that doesn't change a lot you could use LaTeXe (the newer LaTeX),
and if you want state-of-the-art, you could use ConTeXt

LaTex has many, many packages, and many usefull features and stuff. Since
these packages are written by different users, they usually do not work well
together (if the thing they do is similar). In practice you wouldn't notice
that. LaTeX also has a lot of users, so asking some questions and getting
the answers is usually easier, especially if there is a package that
supports your question.

ConTeXt is a sort of next generation stuff. It is pretty new, and can do
pretty advanced stuff. Some of the features:

Figure support: .eps, .png, .jpeg .pdf. If you have .eps files and you are
using pdftex, you'll need to convert the figures to pdf first. Ghostscript
can do that for you, but in my experience Acrobat Distiller does a better
job. The other formats are directly supported. The figure mechanism is
advanced and I am sure it is better than what LaTeX has to offer here.

Tables: This is simply better than in LaTeX.

Formula's: Currenty there is a math module, written by Taco, but I am not
sure what the status is. If your fomulas are in plainTeX then there is no
problem at all, ConTeXt supports all plain TeX stuff (in fact ConTeXt
supports plain TeX better than LaTeX does).

Bibliography: This is in the works, and Taco wrote a bib-tex module.

Furthermore: ConTeXt let's you easily create your own sectioning mechanism.
LaTeX is more restricted in this.

ConTeXt has a greater learning curve since you'll have to find out many
things by yourself (though the members of this list are eager to help and
support you). I found the learning curve to be very rewarding. if you have a
lot of LaTex friends, you can see the diference after a while. ConTeXt
simply makes more sense.

ConTeXt is also much more advanced if it comes to interaction, and
references (the: see figure XXX on page YYY stuff). If you use pdf as a
output-format things are made automagically clickable, and so on.

ConText also has better support for page-re-arranging, multiple table-of
contents, multiple indices, multiple paragraph levels while in LaTeX you are
always stuck with \section \subsection stuff.

Best thing for you to do is look at the manuals. There is a decent beginners
guide which is pretty down-the-drain. There is a reference guide (currently
partly in English, thogh much can be learned from the Dutch manual (even if
you don't know Dutch)).

ConTeXt is also more futurisic, while LaTeX tends to be more old-fashioned
(Don't know if that's what you're looking for).

Changing the layout of your document is usually much easier in ConTeXt.

Gilbert.

Re: (La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

[Neville Dean]

> I'm new to the world of TeX and I've one question that I would like someone
> to answer me. Here it is.
> What is the main differences between LaTeX and ConTeX, and what was the goal
> in ConTeX creation?
> I want to write my master thesis which has lots of figures, tables and
> formulas with one of them, but I don't know which should I use. Could
> someone give me some hints?
> 

I have been using LaTeX for nearly ten years now, but am currently in the 
throes of switching to ConTeXt. Two days ago I produced my first "real" 
document using ConTeXt, and am very pleased with the result. In spite of 
my high opinion of ConTeXt, however, I am still advising Research 
Students to learn LaTeX as a "first language". The reason for this is 
simple: many publications insist upon (or at least prefer) LaTeX. If you 
use ConTeXt to write your thesis and subsequently decide to publish some 
of your work then you may have difficulty getting a publication to accept 
ConTeXt.

---
Neville

PS As a novice ConTeXter I shall no doubt be drawing upon the expertise 
of this group in the near future!

Re: (La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

[Ed L. Cashin]

Jorge Vilhena <jvilhena@est.ips.pt> writes:

> Hello TeX Friends
> 
> I'm new to the world of TeX and I've one question that I would like someone
> to answer me. Here it is.
> What is the main differences between LaTeX and ConTeX, and what was the goal
> in ConTeX creation?
> I want to write my master thesis which has lots of figures, tables and
> formulas with one of them, but I don't know which should I use. Could
> someone give me some hints?

In addition to the comments of the others, I would just add that
context has a different philosophy than latex.  

Context has a similar feel to plain tex.  I really like plain tex.
Knuth made the plain macropackage for simplicity, coherency, and
flexibility.  You can do _many_ things with plain tex because it is
like a programming language.

Latex is different.  It is for people who want to use a standard
typesettting format like journal submissions.  If you want to do
something normal, latex is easier, but if you have special needs,
latex will be very hard, since instead of a small, coherent set of
macros, latex has a proliferation of commands--each feature of each
package has its own command.

Context, like plain tex, is a coherent set of macros that are tools
that allow you to build anything you want.  A big plus is that the
tools context provides are more hip to current advancements in
document engineering, like interactive, hyperlinked documents, color
and graphics, PDF output, etc.

HTH.

-- 
--Ed Cashin                     PGP public key:
  ecashin@coe.uga.edu           http://www.coe.uga.edu/~ecashin/pgp/

Re: (La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

[Hans Hagen]

At 10:28 AM 1/19/2000 +0000, Neville Dean wrote:

>simple: many publications insist upon (or at least prefer) LaTeX. If you 
>use ConTeXt to write your thesis and subsequently decide to publish some 
>of your work then you may have difficulty getting a publication to accept 
>ConTeXt.

Conversion to latex depends on how low level you code your document.
Context has some high level features not present in latex, or not present
in the same way, so that could give problems when converting to another
system that does not support them. 

On the other hand, many publishers accept latex, but send it to a editing
office right away, for recoding (e.g. to xml). I'm sure taco can explain
how kluwer does it in these days / near future, since they start using
context for processing their scientific articles, even if they were
originally coded in latex. 

Alternatively, you can code your document in xml (and process it by
context), which in principle should make publishers happy, but I think they
would be surprised to get xml. 

As long as you stick to high level markup, you're safe. Most context math
(module) can be converted to amsmath (losing only control over general
typo), while structuring commands can be mapped rather easilly.  

The choice also depends on how far one wants to go. For instance, the next
release of context will offer some pretty sophisticated graphic features,
even a bit to the level that (in my opinion) users are forced to think a
bit different about dealing with graphics (for instance layering). And some
more of that stuff it to come (if only to keep myself happy).   

Hans  

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
      tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: (La)TeX vs ConTeX ?

[Jorge Vilhena]

Tank you all for helping me to clarify the basic aspects of (La)TeX and ConTeXt.

___________
Regards

Jorge Vilhena
Portugal