🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <433@pbseps.UUCP>, gary@pbseps.UUCP (Gary Gallaher) writes:
> >>  That it is not suitable for tyros is not even interesting.
> >
> What is a "tyro"?
> 
A beginner.  Which reminds me of my reaction to the first comment
above (take this as a flame if you want):  if there were ANY other
way to learn TeX, then I would agree.  The simple fact is that I
know of no other manual for TeX besides the TeXbook.  Like so many
others who've written here recently, I took one look at it, put it
back on the shelf, and turned to LaTeX.  For all its faults, the
LaTeX manual is much easier for beginners to get something out of
than the TeXbook.  

Don't forget, too, that TeX is a TYPESETTING system.  Most of us 
aren't typesetters, and don't want to be.  The fact that TeX has 
been widely adopted by scientists and mathematicians is due to its 
flexibility, the large number of operating systems that support it, 
and the probability that most of the people using it have never 
had the chance to use an easier typesetting system (read "technical 
word processor" if you wish).  The analogy to programming also seems 
appropriate to me:  write some source code (a document with formatting
commands in it), run it through a compiler (TeX), look at the output, 
and go through the loop until it's right.  This is a familiar way of 
working for most people of my generation (mid-forties), and TeX fits 
right into our notions of how to work with computers.  But easy?  
TeX?  No way.  Made any easier using the TeXbook?  Only if your job
is typesetting and you're being paid to wade through a jungle of
lions and dangerous curves.  End of flame.

OK, that's off my chest.  Back to work.
Harold Corwin
----------------
-- 
Harold G. Corwin, Jr.
  UUCP: {backbonesite}!{noao,cs.utexas.edu}!utastro!hgcjr
  Internet: hgcjr@astro.as.utexas.edu           MaBell: 512-471-7463
  Astronomy Dept., RLM 15.308, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-1083