🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <242@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
garry@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Garry Wiegand) writes:  [about TeX]

>Then I have two basic observations: 
>
>    1) It will indeed (eventually) generate good-looking output for almost
>       any situation, and

If you think TeX generates good-looking output, you are really
living in a fool's paradox.  For one thing, the fonts are terrible.
For another thing, most TeX output shows how difficult it is to use
TeX to produce good looking output -- see Ullman's Database book for
a prime example.  Saying it is possible to use TeX to produce good
output doesn't cut any ice;  certainly a system which allowed each
individual pixel on a page to be turned on or off could be used to
produce good output, but no one would consider using such a tool.


>    2) It has the ugliest and sloppiest syntax of any language I've ever 
>       encountered. 

What do you expect for a language designed using the same principles
of macroprocessing languages of the early 1960's?


>And my question is: 
>
>    Is anyone out there working on a tool which will combine the 
>    functionality of TeX with a decent human interface?

Why would anyone want one?  If you want nice looking output and a
good user interface, I would suggest a Macintosh.


It is now in vogue to use TeX to generate incredibly bad looking
books, papers, and tech reports.  Some things, however, must
transcend fashion -- such as producing written words to fulfill
their intended purpose: to be read.


Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed are my own.  The above is
intended *not* to reflect on Garry Wiegand, but only to comment
on the TeX system and on some of the atrocious output it has
produced.

cheers,

Tim