Hi John,
John Kitchin writes:
> Ken Mankoff writes:
>
> Did anyone see the parody of this here:
> http://mjambon.github.io/vim-vs-emacs/
>
> It is pretty funny!
Indeed. Thanks for sharing.
Regards,
Andreas
>
>> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
>> availa
Ken Mankoff writes:
Did anyone see the parody of this here:
http://mjambon.github.io/vim-vs-emacs/
It is pretty funny!
> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
> available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
>
> Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Do
M writes:
>> Von: Paul Rudin
>>
>> No mention of emacs... who uses anything else to prepare their LaTeX?
>>
> Did you forget the " ;-)" or are you serious?
I wasn't being entirely serious; but I was alluding to a serious
point. You can't really compare a command line typesetting system alone
Dear Christophe,
Great work. You should submit it to http://www.plosone.org/ as a
response. It would be interesting to see what the Referees make of it.
Best wishes,
Colin.
> Hi all,
>
> After seeing Ken's mail:
>
> Le 26/12/2014 23:47, Ken Mankoff a écrit :
>> People here might be interested
Aloha Christophe,
I think you make a good case for the authors' poor choice of metrics.
These aren't well defined in the paper, so it is enlightening to see
your graphics and learn how their metrics were ineptly designed.
I hope you'll make your findings known to the PLOS audience. This looks
to
perience is that publishers charge much more for
> LaTeX documents than for Word (or similar tools) documents and they are
> reluctant to use LaTeX because of its complexity.
>
> That was my $0.02
>
> Fabrice
>
> 2014-12-27 11:36 GMT+01:00 M :
>
>> > Von: Paul Rudin
>
The "study" is an obvious diatribe couched in (poorly done) scientific
method. It almost seems like these researchers have at some time been
required to use LaTeX and are angry over it.
I will agree that LaTeX is slower and less efficient than LibreOffice (I
don't have Word on any of my computers
On Saturday, 27 Dec 2014 at 04:06, Peter Neilson wrote:
[...]
> My conclusions? If your paper is trivial and you are under pressure to
> produce it quickly, then MS Word might be the best tool.
Actually, I don't think I can get any faster than using org for a
trivial paper needed quickly... I'm
On Friday, 26 Dec 2014 at 21:21, briangpowell . wrote:
[...]
> Word is in a different class of software, the 2 aren't comparable at all.
Indeed. Nonsense article, in my opinion. Comparing apples and oranges.
In any case, as my writing is very highly equation based, I think I'll
stick to LaTeX
Hello,
Ken Mankoff writes:
> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
> available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
>
> Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used
> in Academic Research and Development
>
> Summary: Word users
or Word (or similar tools) documents and they are reluctant
to use LaTeX because of its complexity.
That was my $0.02
Fabrice
2014-12-27 11:36 GMT+01:00 M :
> > Von: Paul Rudin
> > Datum: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:05:19 +
> > An:
> > Betreff: Re: [O] Efficiency of
> Von: Paul Rudin
> Datum: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:05:19 +
> An:
> Betreff: Re: [O] Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word
>
> Ken Mankoff writes:
>
>> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
>> available at http://dx.doi
Ken Mankoff writes:
> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
> available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
>
> Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used
> in Academic Research and Development
>
> Summary: Word users are mo
Am 26.12.2014 um 23:47 schrieb Ken Mankoff:
People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used
in Academic Research and Development
Summary: Word
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 23:27:37 -0500, Nick Dokos wrote:
Anyway, color me deeply suspicious of the "study".
Indeed!
The study touches only a few of the inherent difficulties in document
production. Its major flaw is that it draws any conclusions at all
recommending that authors produce docu
Ken Mankoff writes:
> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
> available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
>
> Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used
> in Academic Research and Development
>
> Summary: Word users are mo
This seems like more of a typing contest than anything else. Reproducing
a single page of an already-typeset document is not what LaTeX is
designed for, nor is it what scientists do for a living. The test
selections were absurdly short relative to the typical scientic
manuscript. Long and complex d
Word is a desktop publishing system.
LaTeX is a macro language which lays on top of TeX=Tau-Epsilon-Chi~Art in
Greek
TeX is computerized typesetting that enables vector graphics--you can get
TeX to draw anything you want--you can even create your own font.
More Math journals and books you'd find
,--
| "One may also argue that given a well-designed LaTeX document class
| file, document development speed and text and formatting accuracy are
| significantly improved."
`-
People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used
in Academic Research and Development
Summary: Word users are more efficient and have less errors
20 matches
Mail list logo
