From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pascal Fleury Subject: Re: Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 23:43:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <864msh76hs.fsf@rudin.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0d0f480ff79050b4e7da5 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53468) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y5MYv-0001fE-OK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:43:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y5MYs-0003t9-7C for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:43:49 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]:39533) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y5MYr-0003sv-UJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:43:46 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r20so20631386wiv.12 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 14:43:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Fabrice Popineau Cc: M , Paul Rudin , emacs orgmode-mailinglist --047d7bf0d0f480ff79050b4e7da5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Fabrice Popineau < fabrice.popineau@supelec.fr> wrote: > I agree that this study is certainly not large enough to draw strong > conclusions, but it raises a couple of questions > and some points may require attention. > > I have spent many years in the TeX world. I see how lots of people use Te= X > : students, professionals, researchers etc... > and I would easily draw 2 categories of people : > - those who are programmers "in their soul" (DEK once said that 2% or so > of the whole human race is gifted with programming, the same way some > people are gifted to play music etc.) > - those who use LaTeX "because it is the best typesetting system" > People who belong to the intersection of those 2 categories will certainl= y > be very efficient in producing documents with LaTeX, much more than what > this study shows. > But people from the first category may also be efficient in producing > documents with Word (Word is programmable too and the typesetting engine = is > fancier than most people would believe). > That is funny, as I still face regularly Word typeset documents that do not handle orphan lines properly, and have at least 2 fonts as "body text". Easy to fix, but a non-issue in Latex. As a researcher, handling references and cross-references is not something that is "amortized" on a one-off paper, it's something that pays off over a few documents. And in a publish-or-perish world, this does usually not take long. As a programmer, I like to be able to run one command (call it 'make' if you wish...) that will run some analysis and recompute both the figures and the document into a new version, possibly versionned. And now you know why I use orgmode too... --paf > The real problem is the guys from the second category who stick to use a > tool they are not comfortable with but they don't want to admit it. > Over the last years, I have seen more and more students come with LaTeX > documents which had a very poor appearance. > There has been a lot of pressure with the rise of Linux to use LaTeX. > Unfortunately the results of using LaTeX may not be up to the expectation= s. > The tool is too complex. It can produce beautiful documents when used > right, but it can also easily produce awful documents. > You can also spend a lot of time in fixing details, and it happens more > frequently than even proficient LaTeX users would admit. > In the end, I think the tendency is to a growing number of LaTeX users wh= o > use it poorly. > > Finally, today, my experience is that publishers charge much more for > LaTeX documents than for Word (or similar tools) documents and they are > reluctant to use LaTeX because of its complexity. > > That was my $0.02 > > Fabrice > > 2014-12-27 11:36 GMT+01:00 M : > >> > Von: Paul Rudin >> > Datum: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:05:19 +0000 >> > An: >> > Betreff: Re: [O] Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word >> > >> > Ken Mankoff writes: >> > >> >> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri= ] >> >> available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069 >> >> >> >> Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used >> >> in Academic Research and Development >> >> >> >> Summary: Word users are more efficient and have less errors than even >> >> experienced LaTeX users. >> >> >> >> Someone here should repeat experiment and add Org into the mix, perha= ps >> >> Org -> ODT and/or Org -> LaTeX and see if it helps or hurts. I assume >> >> Org would trump LaTeX, but would Org -> ODT or Org -> X -> DOCX (via >> >> pandoc) beat straight Word? >> >> >> > >> > No mention of emacs... who uses anything else to prepare their LaTeX? >> > >> Did you forget the " ;-)" or are you serious? >> >> Emacs is for sure a very good one, but there are a lot of popular >> alternatives, if you have a look at the (for sure not representative) >> voting >> on the answers of this discussion here: >> >> http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/339/latex-editors-ides >> >> (It's clear, that people may have voted for several of those editors, so >> that no valid statistics at all, but at least an idea...) >> >> Is there any real survey result about which editors LaTeX users use? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Fabrice Popineau > ----------------------------- > SUPELEC > D=C3=A9partement Informatique > 3, rue Joliot Curie > 91192 Gif/Yvette Cedex > Tel direct : +33 (0) 169851950 > Standard : +33 (0) 169851212 > ------------------------------ > > --047d7bf0d0f480ff79050b4e7da5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Fabrice Popineau &l= t;fabrice.= popineau@supelec.fr> wrote:
I agree that this study is certainly not large enough to = draw strong conclusions, but it raises a couple of questions=C2=A0
and = some points may require attention.

I have spent ma= ny years in the TeX world. I see how lots of people use TeX : students, pro= fessionals, researchers etc...
and I would easily draw 2 categori= es of people :
- those who are programmers "in their soul&qu= ot; (DEK once said that 2% or so of the whole human race is gifted with pro= gramming, the same way some people are gifted to play music etc.)
- those who use LaTeX "because it is the best typesetting system"= ;
People who belong to the intersection of those 2 categories wil= l certainly be very efficient in producing documents with LaTeX, much more = than what this study shows.
But people from the first category ma= y also be efficient in producing documents with Word (Word is programmable = too and the typesetting engine is fancier than most people would believe).<= /div>

That is funny, as I still face = regularly Word typeset documents that do not handle orphan lines properly, = and have at least 2 fonts as "body text". Easy to fix, but a non-= issue in Latex.=C2=A0

As a researcher, handling re= ferences and cross-references is not something that is "amortized"= ; on a one-off paper, it's something that pays off over a few documents= . And in a publish-or-perish world, this does usually not take long.
<= div>
As a programmer, I like to be able to run one command (c= all it 'make' if you wish...) that will run some analysis and recom= pute both the figures and the document into a new version, possibly version= ned.

And now you know why I use orgmode too...

--paf


=C2=A0<= /div>
The real problem = is the guys from the second category who stick to use a tool they are not c= omfortable with but they don't want to admit it.=C2=A0
Over t= he last years, I have seen more and more students come with LaTeX documents= which had a very poor appearance.=C2=A0
There has been a lot of = pressure with the rise of Linux to use LaTeX. Unfortunately the results of = using LaTeX may not be up to the expectations.=C2=A0
The tool is = too complex. It can produce beautiful documents when used right, but it can= also easily produce awful documents.=C2=A0
You can also spend a = lot of time in fixing details, and it happens more frequently than even pro= ficient LaTeX users would admit.
In the end, I think the= tendency is to a growing number of LaTeX users who use it poorly.

Finally, today, my experience is that publishers cha= rge much more for LaTeX documents than for Word (or similar tools) document= s and they are reluctant to use LaTeX because of its complexity.=C2=A0

That was my $0.02

Fabrice

2014-12-27 11:36 GMT+01:00 M <Elwood151@web.de>= :
> Von: Paul Rudin <paul@rudin.co.uk>
> Datum: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:05:19 +0000
> An: <ema= cs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Betreff: Re: [O] Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word
>
> Ken Mankoff <mankoff@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 = Fri]
>> available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069<= br> >>
>> Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Us= ed
>> in Academic Research and Development
>>
>> Summary: Word users are more efficient and have less errors than e= ven
>> experienced LaTeX users.
>>
>> Someone here should repeat experiment and add Org into the mix, pe= rhaps
>> Org -> ODT and/or Org -> LaTeX and see if it helps or hurts.= I assume
>> Org would trump LaTeX, but would Org -> ODT or Org -> X ->= ; DOCX (via
>> pandoc) beat straight Word?
>>
>
> No mention of emacs... who uses anything else to prepare their LaTeX?<= br> >
Did you forget the " ;-)" or are you serious?

Emacs is for sure a very good one, but there are a lot of popular
alternatives, if you have a look at the (for sure not representative) votin= g
on the answers of this discussion here:

http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/339/latex-editors-i= des

(It's clear, that people may have voted for several of those editors, s= o
that no valid statistics at all, but at least an idea...)

Is there any real survey result about which editors LaTeX users use?

Martin






--
Fabrice Popineau
--= ---------------------------
SUPELEC
D=C3=A9partement In= formatique
3, rue Joliot Curie
91192 Gif/Yvette Cedex
Tel direct : +33 (0) 169851950
Standard : = +33 (0) 169851212
------------------------------<= /div>


--047d7bf0d0f480ff79050b4e7da5--