🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <705@unc.unc.UUCP> rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) writes:
>		    		...Pick up a copy of Ullman's book on
>Databases, typeset with TeX.  The typesetting is inexcusably bad!
>...Why then was TeX used, rather than a conventional
>typesetting?  Almost certainly it was to lower the cost of producing
>the book, with the attitude that TeX output was "good enough".
>					...get Ullman's book and try
>reading two consecutive chapters.  Don't just skim them (I suspect
>you will find yourself wanting to do this, because of the
>subconcious resistance to the bad typesetting), but make yourself
>read and try to digest the book as a text.  Measure the results by
>how you respond to the material in the book, and how little you were
>bothered by the typesetting...
I just looked at Ullman's book, and yes, it is bad typesetting (I would
have thought it was the fault of the printers, but then I don't know
much about such things).  But I can put up with a *lot* of poor
typesetting (or even typed text!) in a technical book if the price is
right.  In other words, I don't buy a technical book to enjoy the
typefont; I buy it for the content.  All the nice typesetting in the
world won't turn sow's ears into silk purses.  I guess I don't share your
"subconcious resistance to the bad typesetting".  I do have a resistance
to bad content.  Nice to have both, but if I have to choose, I know which 
I'd rather have...
-- 
Mike Maxwell
--What?! Credit my employer with my good ideas?  No way!
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
	...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm