🚀 go-pugleaf

[followups directed to comp.text.tex]

In article <ROLFL.91May27123127@hedda.uio.no> rolfl@hedda.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren) writes:
>
>'! No me digas !  TeX does not nessecarily mathematicize typesetting
>aesthetics.  TeX allows anything that lead types allowed you to, and more. You
>can even keep small changes on one page _from_ recomputation of all the
>following pages.  The comparison with WYSIWYG word processors doesn't keep up
>because TeX offers you the ability to take any degree of control, something
>that word processors can't if you want to keep their operation user friendly.
>Word processors have the great disadvantage that they try to conform to the
>notion that `"it's more important that programs are easy to use, than that they
>do what they're supposed to do"

Few people will argue that TeX output is anything short
of fantastic, but I for one can not write in TeX.  I don't
mean transcribe from paper, but compose in TeX at the key-
board.  Maybe it's just me, but I wonder how many are able
to do this?  For that matter, I wonder what proportion of
TeX-produced articles, papers, and books are actually
typeset by their respective authors?  Half maybe?

My point is that a TeX program with a good wysiwyg frontend,
or a wysiwyg twp with TeX translation capabilities, will
make technical writing and mathematical typesetting skills
available to everyone.  The same thing happened to desktop
publishing, and I see nothing wrong it.  Indeed, I'm having
a difficult time getting along without it.

Tom Scavo
scavo@cie.uoregon.edu