
The LaTeX Fetish (2016) - nbmh
http://www.danielallington.net/2016/09/the-latex-fetish/
======
JelteF
I've switched from writing latex to writing pandoc markdown. I then convert it
to latex and then to pdf. This gets the same result as latex, but is much
easier to type for common stuff like, sections, emphasis and verbatim. It also
allows you to type "&" symbols anywhere.

When I require "advanced" stuff like tables and figures you can easily
fallback to inline latex commands within you're markdown. It really is a
significant improvement over plain latex and I haven't looked back.

~~~
lucb1e
> you can easily fallback to inline latex commands within [your] markdown

How? This sounds like a very nice middle ground between easy formatting and
advanced features.

~~~
JelteF
By just writing it like normal LaTeX. Once you write \somecommand it will
interpret it as latex. See the link one of your sibling comments posted for an
example: [http://tech.lauritz.me/easy-latex-with-markdown-
pandoc/](http://tech.lauritz.me/easy-latex-with-markdown-pandoc/)

------
taeric
I had a few things about TeX versus LaTeX. I think the reality is nobody
really tries writing TeX.

But, ultimately my beef is the straw man that markup is bad because it is
harder to read. That a graphical editor is superior because it is more
readable. Instead, the advantage is that in the one you are only writing text
and you are indicating special instructions to the computer. In the other, you
only see what the computer is letting you see. Note that in both cases, all of
those special instructions are still there. You just can't necessarily see
them.

And this might sound like not a big deal. But the first time you find yourself
unable to change the bold of one section of text (or centering/whatever), you
will really wish you could just drop into a view that showed you why it was
doing what it was doing. Which is ultimately just a markup language.

And heaven help you if you decide to upgrade word processor mid paper. Or go
back and try to touch up a previous one. Markup wins because it is just plain
text. And plain text wins because it is ubiquitous.

~~~
Derbasti
Also, he implies that LaTeX documents are always typeset in Computer Modern
and the plain article template (which is ugly!). XeTeX can use all the same
TTF/OTF fonts Word uses.

Oh, and let's not forget that Word's math renderer is gross.

~~~
gaius
You can use LaTeX in Word directly now [https://support.office.com/en-
us/article/Linear-format-equat...](https://support.office.com/en-
us/article/Linear-format-equations-using-UnicodeMath-and-LaTeX-in-
Word-2E00618D-B1FD-49D8-8CB4-8D17F25754F8)

~~~
Derbasti
You can use the syntax. It still renders using Word's hideous math renderer.

------
moomin
So, to demonstrate how bad LaTeX is, he picks the single most markup heavy
thing you do (barring tables) and compares it to plain text? Plain text, I'll
point out, that doesn't format the same way. In practice, there _are_ a bunch
of extra steps to get this working in Word, they're just not easy to express
in a text document.

Then he goes on to show the example of trying to find a spelling error.
Ignoring that this just demonstrates his editor support isn't as strong as
word's. And completely elides the cascading nightmare that is what happens
when Word formatting goes wrong.

Someone else has already pointed out how much superior a text based format is
if you want to work with multiple people or track the history of a document.

WYSIWYG editing has, to my mind, one advantage only: it's easier to get
started. LaTeX has its disadvantages (such as being a macro language) but
being a markup language isn't one of them.

~~~
peterburkimsher
> work with multiple people or track the history of a document

I often proofread for my friends. I tell them that they must use Track Changes
in Word. Is there a better tool that you recommend?

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Google Docs supports multiple simultaneous editors and tracks revision
histories. It was a lifesaver for group projects in college.

And while 'always online' is often a bad thing, it seems to be a lot more
reliable than the alternatives of email chains with the attached Word
document, appending -R3-edited-complete-final-done.docx to the filename, the
manual merges when two people are working on the same thing, or the USB stick
that gets passed around.

------
cavDXF
One passage made me a bit mad:

"[...], but for now it is enough to observe that people who don’t know how to
use a particular tool very well are being told to throw that tool away and
learn to use an entirely new one on the grounds that it will enable them to do
things that they could have done at least as well with the old one – which is
(when you think about it) a little peculiar if the aim is really to help
people with their writing, and not (heaven forbid!) simply to evangelise for a
community’s preferred way of doing things."

I'm sorry, but this is a bad argument and the worst life advice in the
article. It's the same students in school tell all the time, when they
question why they should learn math, though they are set to become an artist
or editor or anything that seemingly does not involve math. You particularly
go to college or university to learn __NEW __things. Even if they are things
you probably won 't need in the future and are seemingly obsolete.

While he does have a point that (La)TeX Users fetishize their tool of use,
most of his arguments can be used on Word or any WISIWYG tool, too. The
example he gives in point 4 is so arbitrarily chosen and his minimal example
he thinks is better is just as ambigious and confusing as the LaTeX one. Most
comments already mention what the author's real problem: Preference of tool.

~~~
kutkloon7
Well, I don't agree with the author of the article in that I do think that
Latex does offer an advantage in many of the use cases. In any case, any
student in STEM is supposed to write some reports, and LaTeX is the only
choice that makes sense, since there are not many other options with the same
support for mathematical typesetting.

However, you're twisting his words a bit. He says that it's not good to learn
a new tool if you have an old one which can do the job. Not that you should
avoid things for which you need new tools.

I'm all for learning new skills and ideas. However, I hate learning new tools.
The ideas in web development are not hard at all. However, there is an idiotic
amount of trendy tools and programming languages, and that is something I
would object to, because it costs a lot of people a lot of effort.

------
quxbar
One of the best article titles I've ever seen on HN! I actually L'd OL.

I think the author's thesis could be summed up as 'I like WYSIWYG more than
markup', which is purely a matter of preference. I also know there are several
tools which let you do this (to varying degrees of success) with LaTeX as an
output. My own preference is having a complete understanding of why everything
is where it is in a layout. In my experience WYSIWYG UX has to compromise on
its own flexibility and coherence in order to support intuitive and immediate
operations around formatting. I have memories of superstitiously pushing bits
of padding around when I had to sue word in high school. Editing complex
proofs in a WYSIWYG editor seems like an exercise in frustration.

~~~
rocqua
I think you could replace LaTeX with VIM, and WYSIWYG with an IDE and
basically replicate the entire argument for IDEs that is often given.

It largely comes down to a ease-of-use vs power and clarity trade-off.

------
ot
I agree with the overall sentiment, but I don't think that any WYSIWYG
alternative exists yet that:

\- Interacts well with version control: it is trivial to maintain a LaTeX
document in a git repo, and the diffs are readable (especially with --color-
words)

\- Makes it possible to programmatically generate formatted text, tables,
graphs, possibly from external data sources, either with the internal macro
language or through an external scripting language

\- Has reasonable separation of content and formatting. For example when
submitting the same document to multiple conferences it is almost trivial to
adapt the content to the required formats.

If writing mostly prose, these may not matter much, but for technical writing
I would rather not do without them.

~~~
ucaetano
I believe that Google Docs actually handles all of those.

~~~
Derbasti
How would Google Docs update a graph in a document from an external graphics
file?

All my graphs and tables are generated in some programming environment, and
updated frequently. In Word, I would have to right-click every single graph,
select new source file, adapt graph size... Could Google Docs do this?

~~~
ygra
Make it a link to the file in Word instead of embedding it. Then it auto-
updates in the document as well.

------
pmyteh
The author doesn't like writing using markup languages. Some of the rest of us
do.

I'm with him to the extent that LaTeX evangelism can be oversold - when I'm
talking to curious colleagues I tend to stress the vertical learning curve as
much as the quality typesetting and convenient cross-referencing - but I do
think most of his argument is simply a matter of personal preference.

For me, the fairly stiff default structure imposed by a LaTeX document class
makes my writing easier, quite apart from any advantages at the publishing
stage.

~~~
stephen_g
> For me, the fairly stiff default structure imposed by a LaTeX document class
> makes my writing easier, quite apart from any advantages at the publishing
> stage.

True, and if you write a lot of documentation or articles that require similar
formatting, it's actually not that hard once you understand LaTeX to set up
your own class that builds on one of the built in ones to make things look
nicer or work in slightly different ways. You can get really nice, consistent
documents without doing any extra formatting work.

------
krupan
I have spent countless hours fiddling with both LaTeX and Word trying to get
them to do what I want. The difference between the two is, once I had figured
out how to make LaTeX do what I want, the steps were all documented and
reproducible. With Word I had no such record of all the menu items, settings,
and button clicks that had given me what I wanted.

~~~
geezerjay
> The difference between the two is, once I had figured out how to make LaTeX
> do what I want, the steps were all documented and reproducible.

I would add that once anyone figures out what they want LaTeX to do, they can
simply create their custom document class and use it transparently anywhere
they want, and share it with the world.

------
Grustaf
Does this post contain any other argument than "I think it is too hard"?

Except for handwriting based solutions like the very cool Nebo app, I really
don't think there is a better way to enter formulas, and it can be learnt in a
matter of hours.

Writing complete documents in LaTeX is perhaps a bit more verbose, but then he
can use some of the methods suggested here, like pandoc.

Spellchecking he can have if he wants, and even WYSIWYG.

It's worth noting also that if you're aiming for a career in math or physics,
not learning LaTeX isn't really an option.

EDIT: I referred to the Nebo app as 'MathPad', which is an older incarnation
of the same idea, Nebo is MUCH better.

~~~
baldfat
I really think Racket's Scribble has a chance to over take Latex.
[https://docs.racket-lang.org/scribble/](https://docs.racket-
lang.org/scribble/)

Scribble is well designed to be a more readable Latex with the ability to be
beautifully type set.

Example:

#lang scribble/base

@title{On the Cookie-Eating Habits of Mice}

If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk.

Pandoc is a great tool to use if all you need is Math.
[http://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html#math](http://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html#math)

~~~
danraftis
Wow, thanks for the resource... going to give this a go on a current project
of mine. Does anyone know of a solution that solves having fairly complex
Excel tables? It seems like all of these Latex solutions just have basic text
tables...

~~~
baldfat
> Excel Tables?

Are you meaning just having nice looking tables?

If your going more then just nice looking tables I HIGHLY recommend RMarkdown.

[http://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/lesson-7.html](http://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/lesson-7.html)

Using RStudio with RMarkdown makes amazing looking tables with the package
Stargazer.

[http://www.jakeruss.com/cheatsheets/stargazer/](http://www.jakeruss.com/cheatsheets/stargazer/)

~~~
danraftis
Thank you! Will check out!

------
grecy
I am currently writing my first print book, and honestly feel that LaTeX is
the best solution. I want precise control over a 250+ page book. I have never
seen a WYSIWYG editor that doesn't make that a royal PITA.

Different gutters on left and right pages, chapters always starting on a right
hand page, consistent and great justification, fine control over how chapter
headings appear (and quick to update) etc. etc.

On a side note, is anyone aware of a good way to convert LaTeX (or the
produced pdf) into an ePub?

~~~
fny
You can compile from LaTeX to HTML with pandoc and then repackage the HTML
into an epub using a tool like epubmaker[0].

YMMV though with pandoc, not sure how well it handles more fancy latex macros
and packages.

The simplest thing to do might be start with a more HTML-based solution (e.g.
Markdown with extensions, RST) and then compile that into whatever layout you
intend for the physical/pdf form.

[0]:
[https://github.com/setanta/ebookmaker](https://github.com/setanta/ebookmaker)

~~~
emmab
HTML doesn't have a notion of multiple pages within the same document though?

~~~
dragonwriter
> HTML doesn't have a notion of multiple pages within the same document
> though?

HTML is at a higher level of abstraction, but the HTML/CSS stack supports
paged rendering, and browsers tend to support this for print (pre-Blink Opera
did for on-screen use, though I don't know if current browsers do.)

------
merraksh
Deep down in section 7 is the author's own TLDR:

 _I think you’ll probably agree that the LaTeX version looks better than the
word processor export version. Whether it looks sufficiently better to justify
the additional effort is a judgement call that you’ll have to make for
yourself._

LaTeX is indeed a typesetting tool, in the sense that the user writes
_content_ , LaTeX transforms it into _typeset content_. I'm not sure why the
author goes through the same usual criticisms of LaTeX: 1) it's not for
everyone; 2) it's good only for researchers; 3) it has a steep learning curve;
etc. These have been known and discussed about for years.

The coder analogy (i.e. the type/compile loop) is close to my heart: I use
Emacs both for coding+debugging and for writing content with LaTeX. A strong
linking point between the two is TikZ-PGF. I'll consider alternatives to LaTeX
when somebody comes up with something as powerful as TikZ-PGF.

------
jhanschoo
The author misses one very important feature of LaTeX that is the reason why I
keep a lot of my notes in it. LaTeX exposes two mechanisms for easily making
replacements all across a document. One is with macros, which you can change
the definition of when necessary. The other is the simple search-and-replace,
which is very powerful since you can involve macro and formatting syntax in
it. Traditional word-processing and note-taking software like Word and OneNote
simply don't expose such powerful functionality for making edits across the
entire document.

~~~
omaranto
Probably word processors don't have an analgoue to LaTeX macros, but surely
they do have search and replace, don't they?

~~~
nur0n
But in WYSIWYG editors, you can only search for raw text correct? For
instance, if I want to search for all bold text, its trivial to do so using a
markup language, but I don't think there is really a way to do that with
conventional word processors.

~~~
bane
You use the style system built into the word processor. Then when you change
the style, it changes all other instances of it. You can also trivially add
new styles as you need.

In Microsoft Word for Windows it's the "Styles" bar, and on MacOS it's the
"Styles Pane".

~~~
photojosh
It requires huge discipline to use styles properly all the time, because the
options to just tweak your formatting "a little" are made more prominent in
every WYSIWYG word processor I've used. And if you have to collaborate on a
document with others, no chance at all.

It would be interesting to see a word processor that enforced style usage...

~~~
ygra
Actually, ever since introduction of the Ribbon in Office 2007 I found the
styles to be much more prominent than the presentational formatting. Not that
it stops anyone who doesn't want to learn how to use Word properly to still
use the latter, but simply by size and visual importance in the UI styles are
far more into your face than the other formatting options.

And sure, it takes some discipline to use styles, but that goes for any other
option as well (apart from things like Docbook maybe). You're supposed to use
\em in LaTeX instead of \textit for the same reasons you're supposed to use an
Emphasis style in Word instead of italic text. The only difference is that the
mechanism is the same in LaTeX (type a few characters – which is pretty much
why for any given macro you'd be hard-pressed to actually decide whether it's
semantic or presentational), while in Word it's a separate feature.

------
theden
I'm one of those guys. I used to write my university philosophy papers in
LaTeX (which I learned from physics+maths classes), and dealing with citations
was definitely a lot easier. A more understated advantage of using markup was
that I was trivially able to nondestructively comment out sections or leave
comments on important points or paragraphs in a paper, not unlike what one
would do in code. Once I got used to that I couldn't go back to WYSIWYG. Now,
if I don't have time to deal with LaTeX, I'll just use Markdown or whatever
format that isn't proprietary.

------
fny
I have only three gripes about LaTex and friends.

First, LaTeX was intended for physical publication, so there's no native
notion of text reflow or "responsiveness". Worse, everyone distributes their
documents as PDFs, which are a PITA to read on a smaller device or ereader. At
best, an author could utilize something like pandoc to distribute an HTML
version, but alas, publishers never give a damn.

Second, I have been spoiled into expecting that I can modify the way a
document looks to _my_ liking, not yours. I can't invert the colors at night.
I can't change the font size, line height, or margins--and my God do people
use some huge margins with LaTeX.

Then comes the math syntax... Yes it's very powerful, but its a noisy mess to
read and write. I really wish we had a simpler syntax akin to ASCIIMath[0].

LaTeX: (\left(\frac{1}{2}\right))

ASCIIMath: (1/2)

[0]: [http://asciimath.org/](http://asciimath.org/)

~~~
hvidgaard
It's been quite a while since I wrote any LaTeX, but you could compile a LaTeX
document into ePub if you wanted to. In essence, LaTeX is the source code for
the document, and the output is whatever target it is compiled to. So, if it
is compiled to pdf, that is what you get, but nothing fundamental prevents it
from compiling to other formats, given that someone writes the compiler.

~~~
Mathnerd314
I've just been writing HTML/ePubs directly, with
[http://www.bluegriffon.org/](http://www.bluegriffon.org/). What do you use
instead of LaTeX?

~~~
hvidgaard
I mainly used LaTeX when going through university, but after that my use is so
casual that Word is more than good enough (think short letters and the like to
parents or boardmembers). For documentation and notes Markdown works very
well, and certainly much simpler. At work I use a mix of Word because that's
what the other non tech people use, and Markdown for documentation.

------
zephyz
I'm surprised the author does not mention another reason that've heard in
favour of using Latex: scale and predictability.

A LaTeX Document will always behave the same whatever its size and content.
Whereas word processors may unexpectedly change formatting without anyone
noticing, for example in the case where you share a file with someone and this
person update the text and sends it back. The text written might not belong to
the same formatting family as the rest of the text but shares the same
appearance and this change will go unnoticed until the original owner changes
the appearance of the formatting family.

Not to mention versionning. Having your thesis in Latex in a git repo will
consistently work. Whereas you will struggle sharing a single .docx file
across multiple system or even different word versions. And you lose any
possibility to roll back, inspect the history or show diffs.

------
b0rsuk
I feel offended by the omission of my personal favorite, reStructuredText
(reST). It's a very robust and readable markup language, and can easily
generate documents in HTML, Linux man, latex, pdf, odt and more.

If readability of LaTeX bothers you so much, use reST. Best of both worlds,
really. I only roll up my sleeves with LaTeX when I need precise control over
appearance, like writing a CV or a board game manual.

~~~
b0rsuk
Some good points for reST instead of markdown:

    
    
      * Markdown has many flavors, reST is standarized
      * reST is extensible
      * reST is semantic, Markdown is just text.
    

[http://ericholscher.com/blog/2016/mar/15/dont-use-
markdown-f...](http://ericholscher.com/blog/2016/mar/15/dont-use-markdown-for-
technical-docs/)

reST is marginally harder than markdowns, so is it really worth sticking with
MD ?

~~~
lmm
That margin is huge. I've worked with rST, and it's just not fun to write in
the way that Markdown is; even a little friction makes a huge difference to
the writing experience.

~~~
ygra
Asciidoc is a viable alternative, I think.

------
Veedrac
I write LaTeX mostly because it works _and_ looks nice, everywhere. Reading
the document is easy, because it renders every time I save, which is very
frequently. I also use it because it let's me do sweet stuff when I want to,
but I fully appreciate that that's just overhead for most people.

I mean look at the title on the screenshot rendered by Writer! It's horrific!
I've found things improve when you move to a 15" 4k screen, but on my 1080p
desktop monitors at work Writer is barely readable. You seem to be in luck
you're using a Mac, since it's even worse on Linux in my experience.

> I know where it is because I put it there, but looking for it is hurting my
> eyes.

Perchance the fault is with your text editor. It hurts my eyes, too, but the
problem disappears when I use my local editor.

------
throwaway2016a
I just switch my consulting company to have all our documents (Statement of
Work, proposals, NDA, MSA, etc) in LaTeX.

It has worked amazing well. For a few reasons:

1\. We easily can typeset all our documents the same and if we do something
like change the letterhead we can easily update them all.

2\. Auto-generating documents (forms letters) is a snap.

3\. Everything is source controlled.

3a. If a client needs customizations we can give them their own branch and
easily diff the branch with master. Very useful for documents that have legal
side effects.

~~~
greggyb
Curious about clients that ask you to execute these items in their own
templates? We run into this fairly often.

~~~
throwaway2016a
Unfortunately we're stuck with whatever format they use in that case. Haven't
found a good way around it yet. Fortunately for our documentation system, Git
does allow binary files.

~~~
greggyb
Thanks. I was hoping you'd have the magic answer to that, as we face the same.

------
majewsky
I disagree with the premise.

A few years ago, my brothers were simultaneously writng their Masters theses
(in civil engineering, where LaTeX is not exactly common).

One of them decided to plunge into LaTeX. It took him a week or so to get
productive, but once everything was set up, it "just worked" and he could
focus on his thesis.

The other one decided to stick to the conventional choice, Microsoft Word. He
started writing immediately because Word is what he's familiar with, but when
the deadline neared, he descended into near-madness as he fought Word's hobby
of breaking the entire layout whenever a new character is inserted.

In the end, you're always going to have to invest some amount of time for the
typesetting of a thesis or paper. But LaTeX has the advantage of letting you
plan when to pay that cost. (Up to a certain point, of course. The final
layout is "final" for a reason.)

~~~
anc84
When the deadline neared, [I] descended into near-madness trying to get LaTeX
put the correct page numbers where I wanted them, don't have empty blocks of
whitespace in arbitrary places and actually render citations as it did all the
weeks before.

------
DonbunEf7
So use LyX. It's a LaTeX word processor. I've used it for years to avoid
having to directly write LaTeX.

------
arca_vorago
I just write in emacs org mode and call latex (or any other language) when
needed. Then I often export to latex+pdf for that nice latex look.

------
tcpekin
I've spent a lot of time in both Word and LaTeX writing papers and reports in
grad school, and nowadays, strictly use LaTeX. I feel like the author missed
some crucial elements as to why people use the latter. First, references,
cross-references, and citations. These are all shockingly simple in LaTeX.
\ref or \cite is all you have to think about to cite papers or reference
figures, tables, etc. In Word, I have used Mendeley's citation system, and the
built in cross reference system to the same task, but when it comes to the
editing process between multiple people and having different files sent
around, it invariably breaks, leading to hours of extra work either doing it
manually (have fun updating figure numbers if you add another one, or citation
superscript), or reinserting all the necessary cross references. With a LaTeX
file, this is pretty hard to break.

Secondly, LaTeX handles figures 10000x better than Word, in that you just let
it figure out placement inline. Captions are as simple as possible. Meanwhile,
have you ever had that Word document with 10 figures in which you move one
inline image, and every figure jumps to a different page, leading to spam
clicking Ctrl+z? Or how about adding figure captions? Inline you have to use
the caption tool, which isn't fantastic and often creates a text box that
isn't strictly tied to the figure. The method I found best was just to have
another document simply for figures and write the captions in regular text.
This both looks bad, and during the editing process, requires you to switch
between files to keep track of the figures that are being referenced in the
text. Additionally, automatic figure numbering depends on where the figure
anchor is, often leading to improper numbering. Again, referencing figures by
number in Word is a nightmare that LaTeX handles amazingly.

Third, I agree, setting up LaTeX on a machine isn't fun, and I have always
been bad at it. However, I don't do it anymore. ShareLaTeX has solved all of
those problems for me. All packages are available, you don't have the funny
"compile three times to get reference numbering correct", it's amazing at
collaboration with both git-like diffs as well as Word-like track
changes/commenting system, and has tons of templates so the pain of setting up
your document's preamble is done for you.

One tip I have is if someone you work with doesn't know LaTeX and can't be
convinced to learn it, still write in LaTeX, compile to pdf, and use Acrobat
to convert to Word. That works surprisingly well. The Lyx version conversion
does not work nearly as well. I can't say I've tried pandoc though, I would
like to try that next.

~~~
e12e
Looks like paddock has pretty decent support for docx - have you tried it and
found going via pdf is better?:

[https://jabranham.com/blog/2016/11/using-pandoc-export-to-
wo...](https://jabranham.com/blog/2016/11/using-pandoc-export-to-word/)

------
loukrazy
I think many academics write in LaTeX because it is easier to switch between
document formatting styles. If you submit to multiple journals that all have
their own poorly made Word 2007 templates, even the pain of LaTeX is not so
bad.

~~~
rocqua
I think a lot of it is math type-setting. LaTeX just has great support because
of age. Word is getting good, but there's no parity yet.

------
bcrack
While the difficulty of reading markup vs a compiled document is subjective,
there are tools such as texstudio [1] that allow real-time preview of the
document synchronized with the code [2].

[1]: [http://www.texstudio.org](http://www.texstudio.org) [2]:
[https://i1.wp.com/gauravtiwari.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/0...](https://i1.wp.com/gauravtiwari.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/Screenshot-116.png)

------
kusmi
I don't know know if I missed it, it seems like author was really trying to
cover all the arguments, but the Tex family languages are for hardcore
typesetting automation. Author said all Latex docs have a characteristic look.
And most typeset examples that I've seen on the web fit that description.
Because for the most part they use the default settings, default libraries,
and default fonts, etc. Maybe with some variation.

We can agree that everything that needs to be pinched and squeezed can be
pinched and squeezed with Latex. So, creating stylish modern looking tables,
full page width graphics overlayed with expensive commercial fonts, custom
vector graphics and diagrams, is feasible. You would never even recognize it
was done with latex. This makes sense at corporate scale painting reports,
white papers, invoices, in company colors, logos, and styles. Churning
hundreds of styled docs. That's the use case I see for Latex, but no one goes
around showing these off, I assume because making styles like this is a job,
and the styles themselves assets.

------
hzhou321
The 2gig TeXLive installation is quite an elephant. I often wish that I could
just pick what I really needed; but that requires me to understand the
dependency of those packages and suspect the end solution may point to re-
engineer the whole thing. Yesterday I independently had this resolution that I
shall experiment using plain TeX + my own meta-layer macros and see how far I
could go.

The font installation and selection is something I wish to have a GUI
interface as simple as a word drop-down. Maybe I should find/or make such
simple tool (ideally it should load the .tex file and provide WYSIWYG
interface).

The edit-compile-debug cycle is the simple way of dealing with complexity. The
text form (markup or code) decomposes the complexity into abstract parts that
we can focus on one part a time and the feedback loop provides a progressive
path to perfection. I believe at some point, programming skill should be as
common just as literacy today, at which point this edit-compile-debug cycle
will be accepted just as we learn to accept a book without pictures.

------
Ar-Curunir
The author talks about word processors being better because of ease of use,
modern features, etc., but you can get these same features if you use software
like TexShop or TexStudio or whatever the modern equivalent is. You'll get
pleasing spell checking, and you won't have an awful colour scheme like the
author uses in emacs.

------
chj
I agree that at the draft stage it's not desirable to use LaTeX, or when you
need to collaborate with non academic users. But Libre Office is really not a
serious alternative to LaTeX (please don't ask why). Use markdown in the
beginning, and when you have enough materials, you can export to LaTeX and do
the final editing.

------
mrob
I disagree that the LaTeX pdf looks better than the LibreOffice pdf, because
fully justified text is less legible. If you take your eyes off the text for a
moment then it's harder to find your place again. It's all one featureless
block with nothing to guide your eyes. The uneven right edge of the
LibreOffice version makes it easy to distinguish individual lines. This is
especially important if you're skim reading.

But I recognize that some readers prefer the fully justified version. This
suggests that the real problem is designing for a fixed page layout. It would
be better to publish in something like EPUB, where you can display it however
you like. Everybody I know who reads scientific papers reads mostly on screens
now, and I think this is common. The printed paper version is more for
archival than actual reading, so it doesn't make sense to prioritize paper
based typography.

~~~
hyperbovine

      \usepackage[document]{ragged2e}

------
minademian
Pretty measured essay. I went through my own LaTex fetish phase. The
typesetting can get in the way of the writing. I've found it easier to first
write in a text editor and then start typesetting once I'm pretty much sure of
the content.

------
sideshowb
I don't use LaTeX any more.

I used it for my undergrad dissertation. It was great.

I used it for my PhD thesis. It was great.

In between the two, I used it for a research paper. I ended up bringing a
couple of extra coauthors onto the paper. They weren't familiar with LaTeX.
Guess who ended up doing their editing for them?

I stick to Word these days for anything there's a chance I will have to
collaborate on with others. Awkwardness working with people who can't use
LaTeX is a risk I'm not going to take. Plus, Word (and associated referencing
tools like Zotero) have come on a lot since I first used LaTeX 16 years ago.

------
BrandoElFollito
Incidentally, I saw yesterday a document - part of a thesis (the printer named
and spit these pages afterwards).

300 pages in Word, this was really painful to read. It was pure text, with a
few quotes. My first thought was it would have been so much easier in LaTeX -
both for the author and the readers.

I wrote my thesis in LaTeX and convinced my wife to write hers in LaTeX as
well (~1998). This was not because LaTeX is "better" but the fact that it is
plain text, so always useable a way or another, not so with Word

------
agussell
I like writing in a Jupyter notebook. You can use Markdown, write equations
with Python and use a module like SymPy to transform to LaTeX, create graphs,
etc.

------
hyperpallium
Just a data point: LaTeX is used in math-oriented stackexchanges, like
[https://scicomp.stackexchange.com](https://scicomp.stackexchange.com) Albeit
for mathematical notation, not typesetting a complete document.

One might claim it's just catering to the dominant delusional cultist
hierarchy... but it sure makes the math a hell of a lot more readable.

------
Grustaf
It just doesn't seem right to discuss LaTeX alternatives and solutions without
mentioning Overleaf, where you can edit and compile from the browser. They
also seem to have great collaboration tools, but I haven't used them.

[https://www.overleaf.com](https://www.overleaf.com)

------
cfusting
It's true, LaTex is for smarter people with better tooling. Sorry you missed
the boat on that one. Good luck!

------
dmitriid
LaTeX is only good for one thing, and one thing only: create same-looking two-
column PDFs for research/scholarly publications. And it's barely good at that.

Things may have changed slightly since I last used it (cca 2008), but:
combining several languages in one document (Turkish + Russian, anyone?),
tables that properly span several pages, inline images, a different layout
(that doesn't break languages, or tables, or images, or even works, or doesn't
look like shit)? All that is nigh impossible unless you're willing to spend
countless hours digging through obscure error messages and arcane setup rules.

I managed to produce this in the end:
[https://www.scribd.com/doc/31019289/Система-
полуавтоматическ...](https://www.scribd.com/doc/31019289/Система-
полуавтоматического-управления-туристическими-ресурсами-СПАУТР)

My verdict: LaTeX? Never again.

~~~
jcelerier
> combining several languages in one document (Turkish + Russian

what's the problem with this ? just encode as UTF-8 and type however you like.

~~~
jabl
The hyphenation algorithm, I guess, needs some knowledge of the language.
Probably a lot more issues as well.

~~~
claudius
Currently works perfectly for me with English and German where I place
\selectlanguage{UKenglish} and \selectlanguage{ngerman} in front of the
appropriate paragraphs. Hyphenation then simply works.

~~~
dmitriid
> Currently works perfectly for me with English and German

Both fit neatly into the same codepage, latin-1, so no possible conflicts
there

> I place \selectlanguage{UKenglish} and \selectlanguage{ngerman} in front of
> the appropriate paragraphs

What about mixing two languages within the same paragraph? \selectlanguage
before and after each word?

------
amai
Try [https://github.com/hplgit/doconce](https://github.com/hplgit/doconce) .

------
timwaagh
This guy gets it. I could not agree more. LaTeX is a cult.

------
matthewbauer
Note: The article is from 2016.

~~~
privong
> Note: The article is from 2016.

Appending "(2016)" to the title would not detract from the article. But, as
far as I could tell, none of the assertions in the article have changed in the
past year since the post was published. LaTeX and WYSIWYG editing haven't
undergone fundamental changes on that short of a time frame. So the article's
modest age doesn't really imply anything about its relevance.

------
0xbear
Yeah, try to open those WYSIWYG editor docs, say, 20 years from now, and let
us know how well this worked out for you.

