Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Crashedandburnt]

Herbert Voss <Herbert.Voss@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<c1a78u$6bm$01

> The problem is, that there is no documentation about this
> low level structure.

I am sorry to report a telephone conversation that I had some years
ago with
the author of this package. I vaguely remember his exact name, Timothy
van zandt or sth like that. But what I clearly remember is that he was
some kind of
economist and wrote this package to write his book(s). He said that
Leslie Lamport has made millions from his LaTeXbook and he expects
[big] money for his package. He said that he has not released
documentation on the package and will not release the documentation on
how it works. I asked how he knew LL had made million? He said, just
look at the printings, it has over a million. Assuming LL gets a
dollar for the royalty, he has made a million bucks.

The conclusion I want to present to the readership is the following.
Only Richard Stallman, and Linus Trovalds are the true gnu/free
software people.
Gnu is coming with good books and manuals on the software.

But Donald Knuth and others are all using free software slogan for
their virus software. The Texbook is not available free, LEGALLY. It
cannot be re-formed. Knuth has made millions off his books. Omega and
Lout are emerging as strong competitors to TeX. Unless there is real
free software, with good documentation on its usage and implemenation,
it is not free software, but a virus software.

If a group of volunteers want to save TeX/LaTeX, what is needed is to
combine
existing free manuals into a single good and comprehensive free
manual. I can assure you, if it is free, tons of people will
contribute to it, and Knuth+Lamport+Timothy's books and manuals will
be obsolete overnight. What we need is a trust worthy coordinator like
Mr Richard Stallman.

Knuth's book is scrap. It is convoluted by malice or twist of his
mind. It mixes advanced usage with basics. For contrast, compare, for
example, the Adobe cookbook or thinking in postscript. I pick
postscript because it is as extensive as TeX in its functions. CB has
a very nicely organized glossary. Knuth wrote his book to impress his
colleagues so that he can get an early retirement from Stanford by
dominating his colleagues. This is exactly what the abuse of software
to control the world is, and what Richard Stallman is crusading
against. Gnu is now active in the next phase of its mission which is
quality documentation. But since TeX is not FSF software, they are not
likely to focus on it. Someone active in this group is gonna have to
do that.

crashed and burnt

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Crashedandburnt wrote:
> The conclusion I want to present to the readership is the following.
> Only Richard Stallman, and Linus Trovalds are the true gnu/free
> software people.
> Gnu is coming with good books and manuals on the software.

There are good books on TeX too, for free. TeX by Topic, to name one. 
Nobody said that the original author *must* be the one that makes the 
reference documentation. I highly doubt Linus Torvalds or RSM are the 
only authors of the "good books and manuals" on their software, 
however strong contributors they might have been.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
                  (Roger Waters)

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Crashedandburnt]

Giuseppe Bilotta <bilotta78@hotpop.com> wrote in message 

> There are good books on TeX too, for free. TeX by Topic, to name one. 

Absolutely admirable work. Credit must be given where it is due!

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Tim McNamara]

crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com (Crashedandburnt) writes:

> Herbert Voss <Herbert.Voss@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:<c1a78u$6bm$01
>
>> The problem is, that there is no documentation about this low level
>> structure.
>
> I am sorry to report a telephone conversation that I had some years
> ago with the author of this package. I vaguely remember his exact
> name, Timothy van zandt or sth like that. But what I clearly
> remember is that he was some kind of economist and wrote this
> package to write his book(s). He said that Leslie Lamport has made
> millions from his LaTeXbook and he expects [big] money for his
> package. He said that he has not released documentation on the
> package and will not release the documentation on how it works. I
> asked how he knew LL had made million? He said, just look at the
> printings, it has over a million. Assuming LL gets a dollar for the
> royalty, he has made a million bucks.

Welcome to the normal world:  people want to get rich from their
efforts.  Is this a surprise to you?  Of course, this genteleman is
deluded if he thinks the publishing industry is going to let him get
millions of dollars from the sale of a book about software!  People
write these things with dolar signs in their eyes, but thepower
structure of the publishing industry is so slanted that authors see
almost no compensation for their work.

> The conclusion I want to present to the readership is the following.
> Only Richard Stallman, and Linus Trovalds are the true gnu/free
> software people.  Gnu is coming with good books and manuals on the
> software.

That's rather insulting to the thousands of people managing and
maintaining free software packages.

> But Donald Knuth and others are all using free software slogan for
> their virus software. The Texbook is not available free, LEGALLY. It
> cannot be re-formed. Knuth has made millions off his books. Omega
> and Lout are emerging as strong competitors to TeX. Unless there is
> real free software, with good documentation on its usage and
> implemenation, it is not free software, but a virus software.

Oh puh-leeze.  Let's not get carried away.  Commercial software is
not virus software.  Sheesh.

> If a group of volunteers want to save TeX/LaTeX, what is needed is
> to combine existing free manuals into a single good and
> comprehensive free manual. I can assure you, if it is free, tons of
> people will contribute to it, and Knuth+Lamport+Timothy's books and
> manuals will be obsolete overnight. What we need is a trust worthy
> coordinator like Mr Richard Stallman.

An independently wealthy coordinator?  While I agree with darn near
every word in _Free Software, Free Society_, Stallman does gloss over
the fundamental desire people have to make a living.  Writing free
software is not a great business model for the purpose of
profitability, no matter its importance socially.  It is intended to
be "free as in speech," but most users will treat it as "free as in
beer."

> Knuth's book is scrap. It is convoluted by malice or twist of his
> mind. It mixes advanced usage with basics. For contrast, compare, for
> example, the Adobe cookbook or thinking in postscript. I pick
> postscript because it is as extensive as TeX in its functions. CB has
> a very nicely organized glossary. Knuth wrote his book to impress his
> colleagues so that he can get an early retirement from Stanford by
> dominating his colleagues. This is exactly what the abuse of software
> to control the world is, and what Richard Stallman is crusading
> against. Gnu is now active in the next phase of its mission which is
> quality documentation. But since TeX is not FSF software, they are not
> likely to focus on it. Someone active in this group is gonna have to
> do that.

How about you?

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Timothy Van Zandt]

Sorry, but that is malicious slander, and so asinine I'm not sure I 
should lower myself to a response. pstricks has quite extensive 
documentation besides the user's guide. The file pstricks.doc documents 
the main source code and various other extensions have some 
documentation. I don't have anything I've never released.

tim
-- 
Timothy Van Zandt
Prof of Economics, INSEAD
2003-2004: Visiting Prof at NYU Stern
http://faculty.insead.edu/vanzandt



Crashedandburnt wrote:

> Herbert Voss <Herbert.Voss@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<c1a78u$6bm$01
> 
> 
>>The problem is, that there is no documentation about this
>>low level structure.
> 
> 
> I am sorry to report a telephone conversation that I had some years
> ago with
> the author of this package. I vaguely remember his exact name, Timothy
> van zandt or sth like that. But what I clearly remember is that he was
> some kind of
> economist and wrote this package to write his book(s). He said that
> Leslie Lamport has made millions from his LaTeXbook and he expects
> [big] money for his package. He said that he has not released
> documentation on the package and will not release the documentation on
> how it works. I asked how he knew LL had made million? He said, just
> look at the printings, it has over a million. Assuming LL gets a
> dollar for the royalty, he has made a million bucks.
> 
>      <more nonsense omitted>
 >
> crashed and burnt

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Crashedandburnt]

Timothy Van Zandt Prof of Economics, INSEAD <tvz@stern.nyu.edu>
writes:

> Sorry, but that is malicious slander, and so asinine I'm not sure I
> should lower myself to a response. pstricks has quite extensive
> documentation besides the user's guide. The file pstricks.doc documents
> the main source code and various other extensions have some
> documentation. I don't have anything I've never released.

First, the preamble:

1;; The civilized mode of discussion is without name calling and
without ego.
    Unfortunately, the Achilles Heel of the academia is ego. Often
grad students fired
    for ego. Often junior faculty losing tenure for ego. The more
"prestigeous" the
    institution, princeton, harvard, the more the ego disease. Often
forgetting
    that academia is financed on donations and professorship is a
privilege,
    not a God given right and to be used as a launchpad for business.

    Supporting opinions on some of the points following p147 in
    http://www.dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf

2;; Actions speak louder than words. This is a public forum. We have
    arguments and counterarguments, hopefully in a civilized manner.
    Hopefully, agreements too.

3;; I would gladly apologize if you have satisfactory documentation.
Neither
    I can prove my phone conversation, nor you can deny it. We have no
proof like
    Ms Tripp had on Monica affair. I would apologize gladly to certify
    that this is good package with documentation that
    would allow others to go around customizing for their own use or
learning
    from its source. Although a comment per line of code is not too
much,
    I do not hold your package to this standard.

4;; It is fine to make reasonable money. The issue is to have the
manifest,
    clear, loud and open. Not fine print hidden recursively. Bait and
    switch should not be done. If money is the objective it should be
stated.

5;; This preamble is not an accusation or directed to any person
    and do not get angry. I hope replies have not been initiated
before this point.

6;; I would gladly write the doc if the author provides me with the
info. I
    have contributed money to FSF at their booth when I saw their
documentation
    effort. I help anonymously. We all know that there are numerous
unsung heros
    of free software movement. Certainly, it is impossible to refer to
them
    individually and it is easiest to give credit to them collectively
by naming
    Stallman. But to ask me to write the doc by figuring it out is
plain mischief.

End preamble.

I recall, you said in the conversation that you spent "just too much
time" on it.
The feeling I got was that it was too much time to be warranted. While
I was
not sure of your name spelling, I can see from your post that I
recalled
it correctly. I see that you also have a user guide of 76 or so pages
or
page pairs. Is it not a good idea to put a 5 to 10 page document to
explain
how the package works and tie everything together? I will try to find
the
pstricks.doc file. From the extension name it
may be MS word file (I do not use MS word) or just a
.doc extension. But if the former, I can perhaps apply strings command
to
get the ascii or find some converter. 

But the point is that when one spends
so much time on writing a package, refining it and then writing about
76 page
pairs of user manual, it is not much effort to document the workings
of the
package for others to learn and benefit from, since it was put in the
public domain. 

In the coming days, the ability of people to explain the subject
of this thread will itself testify how well it is documented.

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Tim McNamara]

crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com (Crashedandburnt) writes:

> Timothy Van Zandt Prof of Economics, INSEAD <tvz@stern.nyu.edu>
> writes:
>
>> Sorry, but that is malicious slander, and so asinine I'm not sure I
>> should lower myself to a response. pstricks has quite extensive
>> documentation besides the user's guide. The file pstricks.doc
>> documents the main source code and various other extensions have
>> some documentation. I don't have anything I've never released.
>
> First, the preamble:
>
> 1;; The civilized mode of discussion is without name calling and
> without ego.

And Dr Van Zandt made a civilized comment without calling you any
names.  Which is more than can be said for your prior post!

> Unfortunately, the Achilles Heel of the academia is ego. Often grad
> students fired for ego.

Umm, a grad student can't be fired, since they're paying for the
education they are receiving.

> 3;; I would gladly apologize if you have satisfactory documentation.

He has offered documentation which is verifiable:  pstricks.doc.

> Although a comment per line of code is not too much,I do not hold
> your package to this standard.

A comment per line of code is certainly far too much!  Any reasonably
competent programmer doesn't need such handholding; comments are only
needed for the nob-obvious sections of code.

> 5;; This preamble is not an accusation or directed to any person and
> do not get angry. I hope replies have not been initiated before this
> point.

It certainly reads like an accusation, and your comments were quite
pointedly directed at Dr. Van Zandt.

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Brooks Moses]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com (Crashedandburnt) writes:
> > Unfortunately, the Achilles Heel of the academia is ego. Often grad
> > students fired for ego.
> 
> Umm, a grad student can't be fired, since they're paying for the
> education they are receiving.

Actually, in a lot of cases (mine, for instance), that's not the case. 
In my experience, it's almost universal that Ph.D. students are working
with either a research assistanceship or a teaching assistanceship,
which pays for their tuition and a small stipend to live on.  Yes, it's
essentially a pittance above the cost of tuition, but it's certainly a
paying job that one could be fired from, and being fired from it would
make it pretty much financially unfeasible to continue one's studies.

That said, I happen to work in the same university as Dr. Knuth, and I
find the previous poster's comments about ego in academic institutions
to be completely insupportable by the evidence.  Certainly there are no
fewer egotistical people than anywhere else, but it doesn't lead to such
absurdities as are claimed, and it certainly is not the one major flaw
of the culture that he or she claims it to be.

Then again, I don't see a comment along the lines of, "this is as much
work as I wish to put into this thing that I gave away freely seven
years ago, and if you can't understand it, that's not my problem," to be
a sign of an ego problem, and I gather that the original poster does.

> > 5;; This preamble is not an accusation or directed to any person and
> > do not get angry. I hope replies have not been initiated before this
> > point.
> 
> It certainly reads like an accusation, and your comments were quite
> pointedly directed at Dr. Van Zandt.

It is rather remarkable how often posters to Usenet seem to believe
that, if they use the right disclaimer, they don't have to be
responsible for what they actually say.

- Brooks


-- 
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Crashedandburnt]

> 
> And Dr Van Zandt made a civilized comment without calling you any
                          ^^^^^^^^^
I guess you do not understand the meaning of the word "assinine".


> names.  Which is more than can be said for your prior post!
> 
> > Unfortunately, the Achilles Heel of the academia is ego. Often grad
> > students fired for ego.
> 
> Umm, a grad student can't be fired, since they're paying for the
> education they are receiving.

Ask Timothy Van Zandt what percent of grad students need some kind of
RA/TAship to enable them to pay for their tuition and if they get fired
from these positions or not?

> 
> > 3;; I would gladly apologize if you have satisfactory documentation.
> 
> He has offered documentation which is verifiable:  pstricks.doc.
> 
> > Although a comment per line of code is not too much,I do not hold
> > your package to this standard.
> 
> A comment per line of code is certainly far too much!  Any reasonably
> competent programmer doesn't need such handholding; comments are only
> needed for the nob-obvious sections of code.

If that is the case why is their any traffic for questions, many times
basic questions, on this newsgroup at all???? Do a count of questions
in say 3 week period. There is already a tex book.

> > 5;; This preamble is not an accusation or directed to any person and
> > do not get angry. I hope replies have not been initiated before this
> > point.
> 
> It certainly reads like an accusation, and your comments were quite
> pointedly directed at Dr. Van Zandt.

That is why I stated it to prevent misunderstanding. Some people can't
take reasonable criticism and mistake it for accusation.

But get to the point, circumvent the thorny issues. It is the last sentence:

In the coming days, the ability of people to explain the subject
of this thread will itself testify how well it is documented.

Show me the votes by giving the explanation, or accept the conclusion that
documentation is indeed poor.

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[David Kastrup]

crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com (Crashedandburnt) writes:

> > And Dr Van Zandt made a civilized comment without calling you any
>                           ^^^^^^^^^ I guess you do not understand
>                           the meaning of the word "assinine".
> > names.  Which is more than can be said for your prior post!

If you put quotation marks about a word, you should use the original
spelling.  Timothy is not illiterate.  And he applied that wording to
your posting, not to you.  And your posting more than deserved that
name.

> > He has offered documentation which is verifiable:  pstricks.doc.
> > 
> > > Although a comment per line of code is not too much,I do not hold
> > > your package to this standard.
> > 
> > A comment per line of code is certainly far too much!  Any reasonably
> > competent programmer doesn't need such handholding; comments are only
> > needed for the nob-obvious sections of code.
> 
> If that is the case why is their any traffic for questions, many
> times basic questions, on this newsgroup at all???? Do a count of
> questions in say 3 week period. There is already a tex book.

There are few questions about PStricks here.

> That is why I stated it to prevent misunderstanding. Some people
> can't take reasonable criticism and mistake it for accusation.

There was no reasonable criticism I remember.

> But get to the point, circumvent the thorny issues. It is the last
> sentence:
> 
> In the coming days, the ability of people to explain the subject of
> this thread will itself testify how well it is documented.
> 
> Show me the votes by giving the explanation, or accept the
> conclusion that documentation is indeed poor.

Uh, the programmer documentation for PStricks is pretty much ok.  The
user level documentation consists of 4 files documenting an earlier
version of it, and 2 files documenting most of the changes since then.

This state of affairs is indeed somewhat dissatisfactory, and has been
such for several years.  It is, however, hardly anything you could
_demand_ from the original author.  While he probably would be the
first pick for commissioning a manual about it, you need not expect
that he should be the cheapest one, were he willing to accept the
assignment.  Why should he, being best qualified?  And to expect that
he should be compelled to do this for free is ridiculous.

Nobody is in a position to demand such a thing, and least of all some
foul-mouthed slanderer hiding behind a pseudonym.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[R. H. Allen]

On 24 Feb 2004 09:39:44 +0100, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

>Uh, the programmer documentation for PStricks is pretty much ok.  The
>user level documentation consists of 4 files documenting an earlier
>version of it, and 2 files documenting most of the changes since then.
>
>This state of affairs is indeed somewhat dissatisfactory, and has been
>such for several years.  It is, however, hardly anything you could
>_demand_ from the original author.  While he probably would be the
>first pick for commissioning a manual about it, you need not expect
>that he should be the cheapest one, were he willing to accept the
>assignment.

FWIW, one the current maintainers, Denis Girou, is said to be working on
a revised set of PSTricks docs. I think he's only revising the user
manual, though -- the outdated pstricks.doc will still be the only
documentation of the internals.

alan

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[David Kastrup]

crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com (Crashedandburnt) writes:

>     effort. I help anonymously. We all know that there are numerous
>     unsung heros of free software movement. Certainly, it is
>     impossible to refer to them individually and it is easiest to
>     give credit to them collectively by naming Stallman. But to ask
>     me to write the doc by figuring it out is plain mischief.

Even Stallman himself would call this nonsense you write preposterous.
He is not out for recognition of himself, but for the GNU project.
And not for some general goodness or whatever, but for recognition
where it actually employed, namely in GNU/Linux systems.

And how do you think documentation comes into being?  By writing
itself magically?

> I recall, you said in the conversation that you spent "just too much
> time" on it.

If any such communication has happened (which I consider quite
unlikely), this is and remains a valid reply.  You are entitled to
what you bargained for, and for nothing else.

> But the point is that when one spends so much time on writing a
> package, refining it and then writing about 76 page pairs of user
> manual, it is not much effort to document the workings of the
> package for others to learn and benefit from, since it was put in
> the public domain.

Good, then write a pstricks replacement, 76 page pairs of user manual
and document the workings of the package for others to learn and
benefit from.  Blessings, honour and power be unto you.

Until then, shut up.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Crashedandburnt]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message news:<x5ekslnovi.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>...
> crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com (Crashedandburnt) writes:
> 
> >     effort. I help anonymously. We all know that there are numerous
> >     unsung heros of free software movement. Certainly, it is
> >     impossible to refer to them individually and it is easiest to
> >     give credit to them collectively by naming Stallman. But to ask
> >     me to write the doc by figuring it out is plain mischief.
> 
> Even Stallman himself would call this nonsense you write preposterous.
                                   ^^^^
what nonsense? If you quote rather than using pronouns, you would be
better understood.

> He is not out for recognition of himself, but for the GNU project.
> And not for some general goodness or whatever, but for recognition
> where it actually employed, namely in GNU/Linux systems.

What did I say that is in contradiction to your above para beginning,
"He is ...." Don't put words in my mouth, please.

> And how do you think documentation comes into being?  By writing
> itself magically?

The easiest way is for the author or those who understand it well to 
document it at the peak of their understanding.

> > I recall, you said in the conversation that you spent "just too much
> > time" on it.
>
> If any such communication has happened (which I consider quite
> unlikely), this is and remains a valid reply.  You are entitled to
> what you bargained for, and for nothing else.
> 
> > But the point is that when one spends so much time on writing a
> > package, refining it and then writing about 76 page pairs of user
> > manual, it is not much effort to document the workings of the
> > package for others to learn and benefit from, since it was put in
> > the public domain.
> 
> Good, then write a pstricks replacement, 76 page pairs of user manual
> and document the workings of the package for others to learn and
> benefit from.  Blessings, honour and power be unto you.
> 
> Until then, shut up.

Mr. Kastrup:
I am a free man and cannot give up my right to speak. I do not tell
you to shut up. You are free to present your case, and I mine.

Answer this: How many visitors, or posters on ctt or clp do you think
will understand the code when they ask such basic questions daily that
you have to explain, even though they are all explained in Knuth's
book or code?

I think, I have a valid point. The documentation needs to be improved.

It is incomprehensible to the majority. And since you are one of those
who
explains tex, most posters will not come out to dispute with you, but
they secretly agree with me that documentation is not good enough.
That is why I argue that if the regular stream of posting consists of
simple questions, it is impossible that they would understand this
code in a reasonable time.

I might give an analogy. It is a class in which few students
understand
the prof. The rest are afraid of criticising. Most don't know if it
is their fault, or that of prof.

In the coming days, the ability of people to explain the subject
of this thread will itself testify how well it is documented.

In the coming days, the ability of people to explain the subject
of this thread will itself testify how well it is documented.

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[David Kastrup]

crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com (Crashedandburnt) writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message news:<x5ekslnovi.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>...
> > crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com (Crashedandburnt) writes:
> > 
> > >     effort. I help anonymously. We all know that there are numerous
> > >     unsung heros of free software movement. Certainly, it is
> > >     impossible to refer to them individually and it is easiest to
> > >     give credit to them collectively by naming Stallman. But to ask
> > >     me to write the doc by figuring it out is plain mischief.
> > 
> > Even Stallman himself would call this nonsense you write preposterous.
>                                    ^^^^
> what nonsense? If you quote rather than using pronouns, you would be
> better understood.

All five lines I quoted.  Every single one of them.

> > He is not out for recognition of himself, but for the GNU project.
> > And not for some general goodness or whatever, but for recognition
> > where it actually employed, namely in GNU/Linux systems.
> 
> What did I say that is in contradiction to your above para
> beginning, "He is ...." Don't put words in my mouth, please.

You are equating free software with GNU, you say one should not
credit its authors, but instead credit Richard Stallman.  RMS would
be appalled at such a request.  I don't need to put words into your
mouth, you are clearly capable of making a fool out of yourself
without my help.

> > And how do you think documentation comes into being?  By writing
> > itself magically?
> 
> The easiest way is for the author or those who understand it well to
> document it at the peak of their understanding.

Easiest for who?  Certainly not for the author.

> > > But the point is that when one spends so much time on writing a
> > > package, refining it and then writing about 76 page pairs of
> > > user manual, it is not much effort to document the workings of
> > > the package for others to learn and benefit from, since it was
> > > put in the public domain.
> > 
> > Good, then write a pstricks replacement, 76 page pairs of user
> > manual and document the workings of the package for others to
> > learn and benefit from.  Blessings, honour and power be unto you.
> > 
> > Until then, shut up.
> 
> Mr. Kastrup:
> I am a free man and cannot give up my right to speak.

But you need not exercise it by talking silly.

> Answer this: How many visitors, or posters on ctt or clp do you
> think will understand the code when they ask such basic questions
> daily that you have to explain, even though they are all explained
> in Knuth's book or code?

Well, so what?  What skin is that off Knuth's nose?  How many
listeners accustomed to popular music do you think will understand
the depth of the B minor mass of Johann Sebastian Bach when they
can't even follow the beat of techno music and one has to explain to
them the difference of major and minor modes?  Is that a deficiency
in the B minor mass?

> I think, I have a valid point. The documentation needs to be
> improved.

That was not your point.  Your point was that it is Timothy van
Zandt's responsibility to improve the documentation (which you have
not even bothered looking at up to now) without recompensation.  And
that is completely silly.  And even if one would want to be as foolish
as to deny that, this would still not justify the personal attacks you
felt fit launching against him.

> It is incomprehensible to the majority.

Everything except the trivial is incomprehensible to the majority.
That's not criterion.

> And since you are one of those who explains tex, most posters will
> not come out to dispute with you, but they secretly agree with me
> that documentation is not good enough.

I never said that documentation is good enough.  It often isn't.  But
that's no excuse not to first consult that which is there (which you
have abjectly failed to do, even claiming that pstricks.doc was
probably a Word document).  First read, then complain.  The other
order makes you look like a preposterous fool which I am fully
confident you can perfectly manage without resorting to that
particular trick.

And it gives you no right to demand that any other person should
amend that which you find not suitable for your taste.

> That is why I argue that if the regular stream of posting consists
> of simple questions, it is impossible that they would understand
> this code in a reasonable time.

Well, so they won't.  What of it?  Whose duty should it be to turn
the world into TeX and PostScript programmers, and for what reason?

> I might give an analogy. It is a class in which few students
> understand the prof. The rest are afraid of criticising. Most don't
> know if it is their fault, or that of prof.

When have you paid your tuition?

> In the coming days, the ability of people to explain the subject of
> this thread will itself testify how well it is documented.
> 
> In the coming days, the ability of people to explain the subject of
> this thread will itself testify how well it is documented.

How about repeating it a third time?  It's nonsense anyway since I
doubt anybody knowledgeable would feel compelled to particularly
placate you, given your attitude.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Tim McNamara]

crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com (Crashedandburnt) writes:

> I think, I have a valid point. 

If so, you have yet to make your point.

> The documentation needs to be improved.

Since Dr. Van Zandt is no longer involved in the maintenance of the
package, that's not his problem.

> In the coming days, the ability of people to explain the subject of
> this thread will itself testify how well it is documented.
>
> In the coming days, the ability of people to explain the subject of
> this thread will itself testify how well it is documented.

Even saying it twice doesn't make your absurd claim accurate.  This
is a newsgroup, not a referendum.  And why is it posted to the Emacs
newsgroup?

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Paul Thompson]

Crashedandburnt wrote:
> Timothy Van Zandt Prof of Economics, INSEAD <tvz@stern.nyu.edu>
> writes:
> 
> 
>>Sorry, but that is malicious slander, and so asinine I'm not sure I
>>should lower myself to a response. pstricks has quite extensive
>>documentation besides the user's guide. The file pstricks.doc documents
>>the main source code and various other extensions have some
>>documentation. I don't have anything I've never released.
> 
> 
> First, the preamble:
> 
> 1;; The civilized mode of discussion is without name calling and
> without ego.
>     Unfortunately, the Achilles Heel of the academia is ego. Often
> grad students fired

Clearly you are not served properly by those who reply to your posts.  I 
suggest that you immediately form your own usenet list.  You could call 
it arrogant.tex.morons.who.cant.get.a.clue.

I'm sure that you would have plenty of help on that usenet list.

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Timothy Van Zandt]

This malicious slander is so asinine that I'll regret lowering myself to 
a response. The file pstricks.doc documents the main source code. I 
don't have anything I've never released.

tim
-- 
Timothy Van Zandt
Prof of Economics, INSEAD
2003-2004: Visiting Prof at NYU Stern
http://faculty.insead.edu/vanzandt


Crashedandburnt wrote:
> I am sorry to report a telephone conversation that I had some years
> ago with
> the author of this package. I vaguely remember his exact name, Timothy
> van zandt or sth like that. But what I clearly remember is that he was
> some kind of
> economist and wrote this package to write his book(s). He said that
> Leslie Lamport has made millions from his LaTeXbook and he expects
> [big] money for his package. He said that he has not released
> documentation on the package and will not release the documentation on
> how it works. I asked how he knew LL had made million? He said, just
> look at the printings, it has over a million. Assuming LL gets a
> dollar for the royalty, he has made a million bucks.
> 
>      <more nonsense omitted>
 >
> crashed and burnt

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Donald Arseneau]

Timothy Van Zandt <tvz@stern.nyu.edu> writes:

> This malicious slander is so asinine that I'll regret lowering myself to a
> response. The file pstricks.doc documents the main source code. I don't have
> anything I've never released.

Obviously "Crashedandburnt" has suffered a head crash and got his 
memory scrambled.  Maybe he heard rumors of the pictex situation.
Maybe he *is* Michael Wichura ... :-P

Donald Arseneau                          asnd@triumf.ca

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[R. H. Allen]

On 22 Feb 2004 19:53:00 -0800, crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com
(Crashedandburnt) wrote:

>Herbert Voss <Herbert.Voss@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<c1a78u$6bm$01
>
>> The problem is, that there is no documentation about this
>> low level structure.
>
>I am sorry to report a telephone conversation that I had some years
>ago with
>the author of this package. I vaguely remember his exact name, Timothy
>van zandt or sth like that. But what I clearly remember is that he was
>some kind of
>economist and wrote this package to write his book(s). He said that
>Leslie Lamport has made millions from his LaTeXbook and he expects
>[big] money for his package.

I have a hard time believing he said that, considering that his last
update to PSTricks apparently came seven years ago and two other people
have been maintaining it since then.

>He said that he has not released
>documentation on the package and will not release the documentation on
>how it works.

Oh, but he has! One must be careful using it, though, as the current
maintainers have made some changes that supersede parts of van Zandt's
original documentation. There isn't documentation explaining why he uses
each and every Postscript command, but there is documentation for the
TeX commands that assemble the Postscript code. It includes enough
information that even a rudimentary Postscript programmer like me can
usually figure out what the code is doing.

>Unless there is real
>free software, with good documentation on its usage and implemenation,
>it is not free software, but a virus software.

I didn't pay a dime for my fully legal TeX installation and learned how
to use it entirely from free, online documentation sources. I later
chose to buy a book because it was more convenient than printing and
carrying a huge binder full of online documentation, and it was money
well spent. That's quite the opposite of my experience with a lot of GNU
software. Based on your definition, that would make GNU the virus
software from my perspective (though I don't really feel that way).
While I'm happy to hear that GNU is finally putting decent documentation
together, I certainly hope they will bind it and offer it for sale at my
local bookstore, even if they do end up making millions (doubtful).

>If a group of volunteers want to save TeX/LaTeX, what is needed is to

Is it just me, or in the past 6 months or so have there been an usual
number of people who aren't regular posters in comp.text.tex barging in
to explain how to "save" TeX/LaTeX?

alan

Re: Program structure of Pstricks, what is its basic structure?

[Cameron Laird]

In article <42414174.0402221953.24c938a6@posting.google.com>,
Crashedandburnt <crashedandburnt1@hotmail.com> wrote:
			.
		[much other vitupera-
		tion already addressed]
			.
			.
>Knuth's book is scrap. It is convoluted by malice or twist of his
>mind. It mixes advanced usage with basics. For contrast, compare, for
>example, the Adobe cookbook or thinking in postscript. I pick
>postscript because it is as extensive as TeX in its functions. CB has
>a very nicely organized glossary. Knuth wrote his book to impress his
>colleagues so that he can get an early retirement from Stanford by
>dominating his colleagues. This is exactly what the abuse of software
>to control the world is, and what Richard Stallman is crusading
>against. Gnu is now active in the next phase of its mission which is
>quality documentation. But since TeX is not FSF software, they are not
>likely to focus on it. Someone active in this group is gonna have to
>do that.
			.
			.
			.
These certainly are dramatic, vivid claims.

I have no evidence that any of them are justified.  I
recommend those readers personally unfamiliar with Dr.
Knuth give no weight to these unsupported allegations.
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird@phaseit.net>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net