At 00:43 +1300 15/2/07, rebecca officer wrote: >Okay, I'll rise to that bait. Nothing like a nice cheerful OT war.
;-) >I'll concede LaTeX's learning curve, and that its PDF support and font >management sucks. But it does absolutely gorgeous equations. Easily. And >it's got no bugs. And its bibliography engine is pretty cool. OK, I agree. But I've never seen anything come out of LaTeX not created by a LaTeX expert that didn't look like an academic paper. If you want all your printed material to look like academic papers, or if, of course, you actually *write* academic papers, then that's fine. But as far as I can see, if you want to bend LaTeX to produce the sort of output that the rest of the world wants, you need to devote guru levels of time and application to it. Am I wrong? >It's not the tool for Neil's job, but if I was writing an equation-rich >scientific article for print, I'd choose it over FM. And I'm a long way >from being a power user (I live with one; that helps). I think you just proved my point ;-) >Just my opinion, too, of course. ;-) Yup! -- Steve
