🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3847@utastro.UUCP> hgcjr@utastro.UUCP (Harold G. Corwin Jr.)
writes: 

> For all its faults, the LaTeX manual is much easier for beginners to get
> something out of than the TeXbook.  

Full agreement here.

> Don't forget, too, that TeX is a TYPESETTING system.  Most of us 
> aren't typesetters, and don't want to be. ...  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.

But I think that's precisely why LaTeX was created.  It's not necessary for
anyone who wants to typeset their technical paper to learn raw TeX.

Here at Rutgers, my job *is* to wade through the jungle of lions and dangerous
curves.  I try to direct people interested in TeX to LaTeX instead.  When a
user has a need that LaTeX seemingly can't handle, I either find a way to get
LaTeX to do it or I dig out the TeXbook.  Any site that uses TeX ought to have
a similar support person (I hesitate to call myself a "TeX guru") so that users
like Harold can pay attention to advances in astronomy instead of advances in
TeX. 

But if you're hooked on TeX and *want* to Know All, it's misplaced to complain
that the technical reference isn't suitable for beginners.  Beginners belong
with LaTeX.
-- 
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,

Chris Jarocha-Ernst
UUCP: {ames, cbosgd, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje
ARPA: JAROCHAERNST@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU