From: Conrad Schneiker <schneiker@...>
Date: 2000-07-17T03:16:54-05:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:04069] Re: OT: Re: P. of least effort -- fragile typesetters

Hi,

"Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng" <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Conrad Schneiker wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Andrew Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > On a side note, another axis of language comparisons might
> > > be something like "volatility", in the sense of "how bad do things
> > > get when I make a typo".
> > >
> > > On that axis, LaTex and C++ are very volatile (perhaps even chaotic?
:-)
> > > languages.
> >
> > Good ol' LaTex. Fragile tools, brittle systems, and passive-aggressive
> > software are terms that come to mind.
>
> Note OT in the subject line:
>
> So what would you recommend for producing documents, papers etc?

I haven't looked around recently, so I don't know if there are any good
answers.

> Having wrestled with Word, Star Office, eqn|tbl|troff,  and hand crafted
> PostScript drawings (ouch!), I'd be interested.  Is Lout flexible enough?

This is the first time I've looked at it. Certainly looks interesting.
Anyone else have any experience with it?

http://www.chez.com/emarsden/lout/loutFAQ.html

> I cannot find
> much out there that can be converted to the formats people want, and
> is highly recommended for this task.

I have no idea, but it might be nice to have a common documentation
production system and toolkit in the RAA to facilitate the mass production
of Ruby documentation to help promote the earlier arrival of "Passing Python
Day", "Passing Perl Day", and "Passing Java Day". :-)

Conrad