 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.08.2011 17:45, schrieb andrel:
[TeX]
>> and it most certainly
>> does /not/ handle styling or customisation of any kind!
>
> It most certainly does. Style files are are at the heart of the system.
> As a small comparison: a friend of mine had written her thesis in Word,
> after her text was accepted by the committee she needed 3 weeks of hard
> work to convert it from an A4 draft version into a paperback format text
> that she could submit to the printer. I did it, with the help of a
> student, in one evening. And I had different layouts for chapters
> depending on whether it was published before or not.
>
...
> If you mean debugging style files or bibstyle files you are correct,
> that is a nightmare if you don't know what you are doing. Simple advise:
> don't touch them.
From what I managed to glimpse from TeX so far, it is a great tool for
scientific publications - that, and absolutely nothing else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/2011 08:43 PM, clipka wrote:
> From what I managed to glimpse from TeX so far, it is a great tool for
> scientific publications - that, and absolutely nothing else.
Well, it's a tool designed for producing /printed/ text. That is its
special emphasis. If you're not interested in writing stuff on dead
trees, TeX is a waste of time, essentially.
I've written fictional stories with it though. It works quite nicely for
that purpose. It's also not bad for writing documents about technical
subjects which aren't necessarily "scientific publications". For
example, writing about how to program in Java.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-8-2011 21:43, clipka wrote:
> Am 04.08.2011 17:45, schrieb andrel:
>
> [TeX]
>>> and it most certainly
>>> does /not/ handle styling or customisation of any kind!
>>
>> It most certainly does. Style files are are at the heart of the system.
>> As a small comparison: a friend of mine had written her thesis in Word,
>> after her text was accepted by the committee she needed 3 weeks of hard
>> work to convert it from an A4 draft version into a paperback format text
>> that she could submit to the printer. I did it, with the help of a
>> student, in one evening. And I had different layouts for chapters
>> depending on whether it was published before or not.
>>
> ...
>> If you mean debugging style files or bibstyle files you are correct,
>> that is a nightmare if you don't know what you are doing. Simple advise:
>> don't touch them.
>
> From what I managed to glimpse from TeX so far, it is a great tool for
> scientific publications
Is there any other?
Seriously, the number of people that I know that write scientific
publications far outnumbers the ones that write something else. But that
may be due to the type of job I have. ;)
> - that, and absolutely nothing else.
I use it for scientific papers, (automatically generated) documentation,
short notes, discussion papers (blog style, but not on a blog page), my
CV etc. Also my own thesis and those of PhD students of mine are
typeset/designed in (La)TeX.
BTW most of what I use it for never ends up as dead trees. Live pixels
perhaps.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/9/2011 1:58, Invisible wrote:
>> Remember that DbC is a *design* technique, not a coding technique.
>
> If that were true, then DbC would be /entirely/ orthogonal to the eventual
> implementation techniques.
Look up BON. It's basically DbC with empty implementations, and boxes and
arrows.
>> Why do you say that? I had access to Windows source code at my previous
>> job. Not the OS, but selected libraries.
>
> You can actually do that?
Sure.
> Sure. Device drivers are loadable modules. (Apparently with Linux, they
> aren't. You actually have to recompile the entire kernel to add a new device
> driver. Which is just weird...)
It depends on the module, I think.
> But if I wanted, say, to change the way services are managed... that's
> hard-wired in.
No it isn't. It's just one of the programs that runs, just like in Linux.
You can replace it or supplement it, but nobody does, because it works.
>>> You mean there's more than one program that uses that particular shortcut
>>> (for the same thing)?
>>
>> Anything with a text box. One of the nifty things about Windows is that
>> early on, back when Gates was still making tech decisions, they built a
>> text box object that *everyone* can use.
>
> Isn't that how every OS works?
No. Actually, Bill Gates invented that concept.
> Oh, wait. Linux. The OS where every X Windows program has an utterly
> unrelated look and feel. (And usually a sucky one.) >_<
And pretty much everything before about Win95.
> Of course, /everything/ is possible given enough manpower. My point is that
> writing a handful of lines of elisp is easier than writing something as
> complex and monolithic as a VS plugin.
A handful of lines of elisp doesn't really replicate the functionality of a
VS plug-in. It's going to be lots of lines of elisp for each function you
want to support.
>> Well, no, adding libraries to Tcl when you're using freewrap is going to
>> make anything difficult.
>
> Oh, that's the problem, is it?
Most likely. Give it a try. The latest Tcl's are pretty easy to get
batteries-included set up.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Why do you say that? I had access to Windows source code at my previous
>>> job. Not the OS, but selected libraries.
>>
>> You can actually do that?
>
> Sure.
This surprises me.
>>> Anything with a text box. One of the nifty things about Windows is that
>>> early on, back when Gates was still making tech decisions, they built a
>>> text box object that *everyone* can use.
>>
>> Isn't that how every OS works?
>
> No. Actually, Bill Gates invented that concept.
>
>> Oh, wait. Linux. The OS where every X Windows program has an utterly
>> unrelated look and feel. (And usually a sucky one.) >_<
>
> And pretty much everything before about Win95.
Not AmigaOS. :-P
I'm pretty sure that provided a set of widgets that everybody used too.
Like I say, I thought that /all/ operating systems except Unix work this
way.
>> Of course, /everything/ is possible given enough manpower. My point is
>> that
>> writing a handful of lines of elisp is easier than writing something as
>> complex and monolithic as a VS plugin.
>
> A handful of lines of elisp doesn't really replicate the functionality
> of a VS plug-in. It's going to be lots of lines of elisp for each
> function you want to support.
On the other hand, if I want to make a small change to VS, I have to
write an entire giant plugin. Whereas with Emacs, I can write just a
single Lisp expression, or a few lines, or lots of lines, or an entire
major mode, or whatever. (As I understand it, anyway...)
>>> Well, no, adding libraries to Tcl when you're using freewrap is going to
>>> make anything difficult.
>>
>> Oh, that's the problem, is it?
>
> Most likely. Give it a try. The latest Tcl's are pretty easy to get
> batteries-included set up.
More to the point, I have a VM now, which means I can get around the
requirement to "install" it.
(If I install software on my physical machine, I have to record that
I've done this. If I install stuff in a VM, I don't.)
OTOH, I stopped using Tcl for a reason...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/17/2011 1:03, Invisible wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that provided a set of widgets that everybody used too. Like
> I say, I thought that /all/ operating systems except Unix work this way.
Yes. But in particular, a text input box flexible enough to support every
use of it, from entering only phone numbers in a form to Notepad to Write to
full word-processing layout. (Altho, to be fair, I'd expect Word and some
other high-end word processors actually reimplement this.)
> On the other hand, if I want to make a small change to VS, I have to write
> an entire giant plugin.
No, you'd just use a macro.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b4c73967%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, if I want to make a small change to VS, I have to
>> write an entire giant plugin.
>
> No, you'd just use a macro.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b4c73967%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
So, Visual Studio, a sophisticated IDE for developing computer software,
has its own entirely separate IDE for developing IDE macros, WHICH ARE
ALSO COMPUTER SOFTWARE?
Now that's irony. :-D
Anyway, I'm not sure you can use this to customise the behaviour of the
IDE. Looks like it's only useful for automating tasks that the IDE
itself can already perform...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/17/2011 8:10, Invisible wrote:
> Now that's irony. :-D
It's basically a different "project explorer". Just like you have in Word or
Excel.
> Anyway, I'm not sure you can use this to customise the behaviour of the IDE.
> Looks like it's only useful for automating tasks that the IDE itself can
> already perform...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/345xe6tb%28v=VS.80%29.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/0b27f9kz%28v=VS.80%29.aspx
And how do you automate something in elisp that emacs can't already do? What
kind of thing do you think elisp can do that a macro with complete access to
both native code and the full DOM of the entire development environment
can't do?
Pretty sure emacs cannot, for example, do this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/envdte80.events2.debuggerprocessevents%28v=VS.80%29.aspx
Unfortunately, it's extremely annoying that text in MSDN web pages doesn't
HTML-link to the descriptions of the classes that various methods take and
return. So if you have a method that returns a ProcessItem or something, you
actually have to go search for "ProcessItem class" instead of just clicking
the name to get to the docs. Like MS never really figured out that whole
HTML anchor/link kind of thing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> writes:
> It's things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQAd41VAXWo
These days, Orgmode attracts more users to Emacs than anything else,
methinks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> writes:
>>> Apparently by typing Ctrl+U 8 Ctrl+F, I can move the cursor exactly 8
>>> characters left. I'm left wondering why in the name of God I would *ever*
>>> want to do this.
>>
>> Because you want to draw a line of 30 hyphens across the screen. Or you
>> want to skip to line 287 in your file.
>
> I'm kinda surprised that there doesn't seem to be a "go to line 287"
M-g g 287
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
