From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "briangpowell ." Subject: Re: Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:21:52 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134e7b6ea8d01050b294d53 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33327) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4h0t-0002PT-29 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:21:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4h0r-0005Mh-Jg for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:21:55 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]:46630) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4h0r-0005Mc-Bi for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:21:53 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id v63so23797547oia.1 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:21:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: "Thomas S. Dye" Cc: Org-mode mailing list , Ken Mankoff --001a1134e7b6ea8d01050b294d53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 in the library are created using TeX than any other software system. The poor kerning and severe limitations of Word are too many to number here. Word is in a different class of software, the 2 aren't comparable at all. Word is a poor WYSIWYG software package that is good for low quality desktop publishing, team collaboration but can be programmed and interacted with through VB--its useful to the general public. LaTeX provides precision and expression; there are things you can do with TeX that aren't possible with Word. Members of the Free Software community (which TeX has always been a part of) will never bow down to the Micro$oft tyranny which is so evil words can't express the depths of their corruption--the comparison is absurd. On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Thomas S. Dye wrote: > > ,---------------------------------------------------------------------- > | "One may also argue that given a well-designed LaTeX document class > | file, document development speed and text and formatting accuracy are > | significantly improved." > `---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Apparently, the LaTeX users didn't have the benefit of a document > class. Hard to take a "study" like this seriously. > > ,----------------------------------------------------------------------- > | "preventing researchers from producing documents in LaTeX would save > | time and money to maximize the benefit of research and development for > | both the research team and the public" > `----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > All you have to lose is your freedom. > > All the best, > Tom > > 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 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? > > > > -k. > > > > > > > > -- > Thomas S. Dye > http://www.tsdye.com > > --001a1134e7b6ea8d01050b294d53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Word is a desktop publishing system.

La= TeX is a macro language which lays on top of TeX=3DTau-Epsilon-Chi~Art in G= reek

TeX is computerized typesetting that enables = vector graphics--you can get TeX to draw anything you want--you can even cr= eate your own font.

More Math journals and books y= ou'd find in the library are created using TeX than any other software = system.

The poor kerning and severe limitations of= Word are too many to number here.

Word is in a di= fferent class of software, the 2 aren't comparable at all.
Word is a poor WYSIWYG software package that is good for low q= uality desktop publishing, team collaboration but can be programmed and int= eracted with through VB--its useful to the general public.

LaTeX provides precision and expression; there are things you can = do with TeX that aren't possible with Word.

Me= mbers of the Free Software community (which TeX has always been a part of) = will never bow down to the Micro$oft tyranny which is so evil words can'= ;t express the depths of their corruption--the comparison is absurd.
<= div>



On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Thomas S.= Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
,----------------------------------------------------------------------
| "One may also argue that given a well-designed LaTeX document class<= br> | file, document development speed and text and formatting accuracy are
| significantly improved."
`----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently, the LaTeX users didn't have the benefit of a document
class.=C2=A0 Hard to take a "study" like this seriously.

,----------------------------------------------------------------------- | "preventing researchers from producing documents in LaTeX would save=
| time and money to maximize the benefit of research and development for | both the research team and the public"
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All you have to lose is your freedom.

All the best,
Tom

Ken Mankoff <mankoff@gmail.com&= gt; 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<= br> > experienced LaTeX users.
>
> Someone here should repeat experiment and add Org into the mix, perhap= s
> Org -> ODT and/or Org -> LaTeX and see if it helps or hurts. I a= ssume
> Org would trump LaTeX, but would Org -> ODT or Org -> X -> DO= CX (via
> pandoc) beat straight Word?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0-k.
>
>
>

--
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com=


--001a1134e7b6ea8d01050b294d53--