From: M <Elwood151@web.de>
To: emacs orgmode-mailinglist <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Cc: Paul Rudin <paul@rudin.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:36:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D0C44A59.21E88%Elwood151@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <864msh76hs.fsf@rudin.co.uk>
> Von: Paul Rudin <paul@rudin.co.uk>
> Datum: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:05:19 +0000
> An: <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Betreff: Re: [O] Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word
>
> Ken Mankoff <mankoff@gmail.com> 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 more efficient and have less errors than even
>> experienced LaTeX users.
>>
>> Someone here should repeat experiment and add Org into the mix, perhaps
>> Org -> ODT and/or Org -> LaTeX and see if it helps or hurts. I assume
>> Org would trump LaTeX, but would Org -> ODT or Org -> X -> DOCX (via
>> pandoc) beat straight Word?
>>
>
> No mention of emacs... who uses anything else to prepare their LaTeX?
>
Did you forget the " ;-)" or are you serious?
Emacs is for sure a very good one, but there are a lot of popular
alternatives, if you have a look at the (for sure not representative) voting
on the answers of this discussion here:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/339/latex-editors-ides
(It's clear, that people may have voted for several of those editors, so
that no valid statistics at all, but at least an idea...)
Is there any real survey result about which editors LaTeX users use?
Martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-27 10:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-26 22:47 Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word Ken Mankoff
2014-12-26 23:36 ` Thomas S. Dye
2014-12-27 2:21 ` briangpowell .
2014-12-27 14:36 ` Eric S Fraga
2014-12-27 3:26 ` Christopher W. Ryan
2014-12-28 22:45 ` Bob Newell
2014-12-27 4:27 ` Nick Dokos
2014-12-27 9:06 ` Peter Neilson
2014-12-27 14:38 ` Eric S Fraga
2014-12-27 9:48 ` Achim Gratz
2014-12-27 10:05 ` Paul Rudin
2014-12-27 10:36 ` M [this message]
2014-12-27 11:36 ` Fabrice Popineau
2014-12-28 22:43 ` Pascal Fleury
2014-12-31 18:19 ` Paul Rudin
2014-12-27 13:37 ` Daniele Pizzolli
2014-12-28 21:40 ` Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word ---LOOK AT THE DATA! Christophe Pouzat
2014-12-29 19:47 ` Thomas S. Dye
2014-12-31 16:59 ` Colin Baxter
2015-01-04 20:38 ` Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word John Kitchin
2015-01-04 21:15 ` Andreas Leha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=D0C44A59.21E88%Elwood151@web.de \
--to=elwood151@web.de \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--cc=paul@rudin.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).