From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-08-31T22:03:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Typos (Was: performance comparison)

Hi --

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Lothar Scholz wrote:

> Hello David,
> 
> 
> DAB> teTeX is a TeX distribution.  LaTeX is a package of macros written in
> DAB> TeX.  I don't think teTeX is relevant here; you can't blame people who
> DAB> want to use software for packaging and distributing it :-)  
> 
> Sorry you missunderstand something. I don't blame anyone. I'm just
> building and defending a chain or arguments to prove my opinion
> against a so called general purpose programming process theory
> - literate programming.
> 
> DAB> When you use LaTeX, you are using TeX.  There is nothing more "real"
> DAB> about using TeX without macros -- in fact, I don't think it's possible
> DAB> to get much done that way.  (I suppose you could inline everything,
> DAB> but that was never the goal of TeX.)  
> 
> I know this. But the question was is TeX still under development.
> Maybe i'm wrong but i doubt this. The many many macro packages out
> there are under heavy development. Sure. But are whey written not only
> Tex but also CWeb applications ?
> 
> We were talking in this thread (a long time ago) about the argument if
> TeX is a valid example that the literate programming process works, or
> better is able to be maintained in programs that change.
> I doubt that, others told me that TeX is an "real world" example.
> 
> From the version numbering (how close is the version number now
> compared to the euler number ?) i simply don't think that TeX is
> developed anymore. Are still feature added ? Again to the core, not to
> the 3rd party programs or macro packages.

TeX isn't developed any more; that's official.  It's interesting that
you view that as a sign of failure :-)  I think it just means that
the program does what Knuth wants it to do -- not a concept we
encounter much, but it's certainly plausible.  It doesn't mean that
TeX is perfect, or that it will please everyone.  But of course no
program, even those with completely open-ended development, every
pleases everyone.  

> And so my argument is that this is not valid example that the literate
> programming modell works.

Using TeX certainly does not mean you're using the literate
programming model (in case it sounded like I meant that, given the
context).  But the success of TeX certainly means that a program
written using that model (i.e., TeX itself) can be successful.
Literate programming itself doesn't seem to have caught on very much,
at least in the circles I move in.  I've never studied it deeply
enough to analyze it further.  


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net