Choosing TeX um ... stuff

Choosing TeX um ... stuff

[Peter Davis]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]

I've been on the periphery of TeX for years, as a casual user of LaTeX and
also as an implementer of publishing software.  However, I'm afraid I
haven't kept in as close touch as I'd like, and now I find myself trying to
absorb a lot in a short time.  I'm trying to choose what software to use in
building an XML->TeX workflow.

I'd appreciate any help with the following questions:


   1. True or False: TeX can be categorized along three orthogonal axes:
      1. by format (plain TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, others?)
      2. by implementation (web2c, pdfTeX/pdfLaTeX, LuaTeX, others?)
      3. by distribution (MikTeX, TeXLive, MacTeX, others?)

      2. True or False: plain TeX and LaTeX(2e) are warhorses ... been
   around for decades, quirks well known, lots of documentation, etc.

   3. True or False: ConTeXt is newer, with a lot of built-in features, but
   still changing quite a bit from build to build.


Other comments welcome vis. picking which software to use.  One point is
that since the actual TeX input files will be generated programmatically,
readability or ease-of-coding is not a factor.  I was going to use plain
TeX, but it seems a lot of features like placing text boxes and graphics
anywhere, using system fonts, etc. are more available for LaTeX and ConTeXt.

Thank you for any comments!

-pd

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1517 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Choosing TeX um ... stuff

[Mojca Miklavec]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 22:23, Peter Davis <pfd@pfdstudio.com> wrote:
> I've been on the periphery of TeX for years, as a casual user of LaTeX and
> also as an implementer of publishing software.  However, I'm afraid I
> haven't kept in as close touch as I'd like, and now I find myself trying to
> absorb a lot in a short time.  I'm trying to choose what software to use in
> building an XML->TeX workflow.
> I'd appreciate any help with the following questions:
>
> True or False: TeX can be categorized along three orthogonal axes:
>
> by format (plain TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, others?)

In general true, just a tiny detail; ConTeXt has several formats:
- English (cont-en), Dutch (cont-nl), German (cont-de), ... [not too
interesting to you, I guess ...]
- ConTeXt MKII and ConTeXt MKIV are somehow different formats, but
that distinction is already made on the engine basis

There are other formats like cstex, cslatex, ..., but they are not too
important.

> by implementation (web2c, pdfTeX/pdfLaTeX, LuaTeX, others?)

No, that is called "by engine": tex, pdftex, xetex, luatex are the
most important ones. Others not too important are known (ptex, ...)

MikTeX and TeX Live are not compatible, but I'm not sure how to classify that.

> by distribution (MikTeX, TeXLive, MacTeX, others?)

MacTeX is basically TeX Live, repackaged for Mac in a more
user-friendly way. Another important distribution for ConTeXt users is
"ConTeXt Minimals". There are many other distributions (w32tex, ...),
many of them obsolete by now (gwTeX, tetex, emtex, fptex, ...). The
most important ones are just MikTeX and TeX Live (including MacTeX),
plus minimals for ConTeXt users.

> I was going to use plain
> TeX, but it seems a lot of features like placing text boxes and graphics
> anywhere, using system fonts, etc. are more available for LaTeX and ConTeXt.

Using system fonts depends on engine. Only XeTeX and LuaTeX allow
that. You can use any system font with plain XeTeX, but it's slightly
easier to access the fonts with LaTeX and ConTeXt. (But if you
generate the output automatically, it hardly makes a difference.)

ConTeXt makes an enormous difference in layout issues.

Mojca
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Choosing TeX um ... stuff

[Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd)]

Peter Davis wrote:

> I've been on the periphery of TeX for years, as a casual user of LaTeX
> and also as an implementer of publishing software.  However, I'm afraid
> I haven't kept in as close touch as I'd like, and now I find myself
> trying to absorb a lot in a short time.  I'm trying to choose what
> software to use in building an XML->TeX workflow.
>
> I'd appreciate any help with the following questions:
>
>    1. True or False: TeX can be categorized along three orthogonal axes:
>          1. by format (plain TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, others?)
>          2. by implementation (web2c, pdfTeX/pdfLaTeX, LuaTeX, others?)
>          3. by distribution (MikTeX, TeXLive, MacTeX, others?)

2) is false; whilst "web2c" is a methodology and
an basis for implementation, pdfTeX is a derivative,
pdfLaTeX is simply LaTeX layered on top of PdfTeX,
LuaTeX is a major fork, and so on.

>    2. True or False: plain TeX and LaTeX(2e) are warhorses ... been
>       around for decades, quirks well known, lots of documentation, etc.

Yes, except that while Plain TeX has more-or-less remained
static (modulo essential bug fixes by Don), LaTeX2e has
continued to evolve.  I have heard rumours that this particular
evolutionary branch may have come to an end, but I have
no definite knowledge of this.

>    3. True or False: ConTeXt is newer, with a lot of built-in features,
>       but still changing quite a bit from build to build.

Context is a L O T newer : it has many devotees, but is still
something of an outside to mainstream TeX usage.

>
> Other comments welcome vis. picking which software to use.  One point is
> that since the actual TeX input files will be generated
> programmatically, readability or ease-of-coding is not a factor.  I was
> going to use plain TeX, but it seems a lot of features like placing text
> boxes and graphics anywhere, using system fonts, etc. are more available
> for LaTeX and ConTeXt.
>
> Thank you for any comments!

Talk to River Valley and/or Sebastian Rahtz; both have considerable
knowledge of the matters that interest you.

Philip Taylor

Re: Choosing TeX um ... stuff

[Hans Hagen]

On 17-11-2010 10:23, Peter Davis wrote:

>        1. by format (plain TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, others?)

there are others but they're sort of obsolete

>        2. by implementation (web2c, pdfTeX/pdfLaTeX, LuaTeX, others?)

see remarks by Mojca: engines (etex, pdftex, xetex, luatex), 
implementation (web2c, etc), pdflatex is just a format

>        3. by distribution (MikTeX, TeXLive, MacTeX, others?)
>
>        2. True or False: plain TeX and LaTeX(2e) are warhorses ... been
>     around for decades, quirks well known, lots of documentation, etc.

the latex kernel yes, styles and extensions is another matter

>     3. True or False: ConTeXt is newer, with a lot of built-in features, but
>     still changing quite a bit from build to build.

depends on what you use ... you're not a demanding power user in terms 
of typeserting and the basic mechanism are ok (mkii does not change at 
all, while mkiv is developed in sync with luatex)

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Choosing TeX um ... stuff

[Paul Isambert]

Selon "Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>:

>
>
> Peter Davis wrote:
> >    2. True or False: plain TeX and LaTeX(2e) are warhorses ... been
> >       around for decades, quirks well known, lots of documentation, etc.
>
> Yes, except that while Plain TeX has more-or-less remained
> static (modulo essential bug fixes by Don), LaTeX2e has
> continued to evolve.  I have heard rumours that this particular
> evolutionary branch may have come to an end, but I have
> no definite knowledge of this.

And plain TeX doesn't have a lot of documentation. Anyway there isn't much to
document. Basically using plain TeX means you need a very good knowledge of the
engine, and you'll write tons of macros (in a way there are no plain TeX users,
only users of personal formats based on plain).

> >    3. True or False: ConTeXt is newer, with a lot of built-in features,
> >       but still changing quite a bit from build to build.
>
> Context is a L O T newer : it has many devotees, but is still
> something of an outside to mainstream TeX usage.

Philip, plain TeX isn't exactly mainstream anymore, and ConTeXt probably beats
it on this point. And ConTeXt is already more than 15 years old, so it's not so
new, although it does keep moving.

Paul

Re: Choosing TeX um ... stuff

[Peter Davis]

Thanks for all the information, and for helping me update and refine my 
view of the (TeX) world.

For the project I'm doing now, which involves creating "desktop 
publishing type" documents (multiple text flows, explicit control of 
placement of text and graphic elements, etc.), ConTeXt seems to be 
winning hand's down.  I may also be using the XML features, so that's 
another plus.

However, I'm also attracted by the stability and widespread use of plain 
TeX and LaTeX.

It's clear from this that whatever path I take, there are lots of very 
knowledgeable and helpful people to get me over the hurdles.

Thank you!

-pd

-- 
--------
Peter Davis
  The Tech Curmudgeon - http://www.techcurmudgeon.com
Ideas Great and Dumb - http://www.ideasgreatanddumb.com

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [texhax] Choosing TeX um ... stuff

[Hans Hagen]

On 17-11-2010 11:06, Paul Isambert wrote:

> Philip, plain TeX isn't exactly mainstream anymore, and ConTeXt probably beats
> it on this point. And ConTeXt is already more than 15 years old, so it's not so
> new, although it does keep moving.

fyi, there are two versions of context:

- mkii is a frozen snapshot of context that runs on top of pdftex and xetex
- mkiv is the mainstream version and runs on top of luatex; it is a 
rathere drastic rewrite + major upgrade and many internals are pretty 
new but is mostly downward compatible as well

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [texhax] Choosing TeX um ... stuff

[luigi scarso]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Paul Isambert <zappathustra@free.fr> wrote:
> Selon "Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>:
>
>>
>>
>> Peter Davis wrote:
>> >    2. True or False: plain TeX and LaTeX(2e) are warhorses ... been
>> >       around for decades, quirks well known, lots of documentation, etc.
>>
>> Yes, except that while Plain TeX has more-or-less remained
>> static (modulo essential bug fixes by Don), LaTeX2e has
>> continued to evolve.  I have heard rumours that this particular
>> evolutionary branch may have come to an end, but I have
>> no definite knowledge of this.
>
> And plain TeX doesn't have a lot of documentation. Anyway there isn't much to
> document. Basically using plain TeX means you need a very good knowledge of the
> engine, and you'll write tons of macros (in a way there are no plain TeX users,
> only users of personal formats based on plain).
I consider  eplain as something "useful" between plain and latex

We should also consider that, in general,
0<size(plain)<size(eplain)<size(latex)<size(context_mkii)
and
speed(context_mkii)<=speed(latex)<speed(eplain)<speed(plain)
So for "trivial" typographic problems as automatic typesetting of labels
maybe eplain can be the right choice -- it's fast and doesn't consume
much memory hence you can have many instances.

ConTeXt mkiv is something new: while it's still "TeX", it has so many
"practical"
news that it needs time to understand all implications.
Also the engine (luatex) is still unfinished (currently at 64%) and
mkiv evolves as luatex evelves --- i.e. it's still "unstable" of one
compares with mkii.




-- 
luigi
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [texhax] Choosing TeX um ... stuff

[Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd)]

Paul Isambert wrote:

 > And plain TeX doesn't have a lot of documentation. Anyway there isn't much to
 > document. Basically using plain TeX means you need a very good knowledge of the
 > engine, and you'll write tons of macros (in a way there are no plain TeX users,
 > only users of personal formats based on plain).

All true, except for the first part, where there is plenty of
documentation available : The TeXbook, TeX by Topic, SvB's
mammoth \TeX} in Practice, plus many others listed at Nelson
Beebe's http://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub//tex/bib/texbook1.html

 > Philip, plain TeX isn't exactly mainstream anymore, and ConTeXt probably beats
 > it on this point. And ConTeXt is already more than 15 years old, so it's not so
 > new, although it does keep moving.

I'll address these later : have to leave now.
** Phil.
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________