Talk:LaTeX/Introduction

Various
This could be expanded. See my article LaTeX isn't for everyone but it could be for you --Andyr 21:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot seem to find instructions on how to put tabs (for paragraphs) in the text.

I removed this line, because there is no difference WYSIWYG editing is available on all platforms as well


 * It is available (and transportable) across many platforms (Windows, Mac, Unix and Linux are all supported).

Err.. Tex a programming language? Imo it's just a markup language, like html, not programming.


 * It's a programming language aimed to typesetting, but you could (theoretically) use it for anything. PostScript is made with the same approach. You can use if-else constructs and there are packages to make dynamic calculations (that are performed while compiling). I'll point this out clearly in the main page. Alessio Damato 11:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why low-level programming language? That sounds like some kind of assembly language.


 * if you are considering a typesetting system, then it's definitely a low-level programming language, because you have to tell the compiler where any object has to be placed, its size, etc. I can't imagine anything lower than this. In any case, it's the "lowest" approach I know for typesetting. Alessio Damato 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi I noticed that tetex is given as a suggested LaTeX distribution for Unix, but it's currently deprecated, and TeXLive is supposed to be used instead.

-- Ben

dvipdf and dvipdfm
I don't know the difference between dvipdf and dvipdfm, but when I have used them in the past I always got better output with dvipdfm. I have looked for info on internet, and it looks like it's not just a case, see for example http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/bit/compintro/tips.html, LaTeX section point 8. In the article, at the beginning I just wrote dvipdfm because I knew it is better, so I didn't want to write about two different tools doing the same thing, when we are sure that one always works better than the other. Is this true? is dvipdfm a good replacement of dvipdf in any case? Alessio Damato 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, dvipdfmx is the dvi-to-pdf program that is currently maintained. it has additional support for cjk, among other things. dvipdf and dvipdfm are unmaintained and there is no reason to use them. --karl@tug.org

Section "Skills needed"
I have removed the section "Skills needed", added to the bulk of the chapter later. It contained such incomprehensible claims as:
 * 1) LaTeX is "very easy" to learn.
 * 2) "Familiarity with publishing process is useful." From what I understand, learning LaTeX has little to do with publishing process.

I am acting on the assumption that the purpose of this book is to make the user use LaTeX effectively, finding quickly how to perform various tasks and solve problems.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Discrepency of definition
I would like to point out a point of confusion I came across as a new user of LaTeX hoping to benefit from this page. During the discussion of installation, first the instructions advise us to download one of the three platform-specific TeX distributions. Later in the discussion, we are told that our "LaTeX distribution" will contain such and such things. But what is a LaTeX distribution? Is it included in the TeX distribution we were advised to download? Where is the discussion on this? This creates confusion, and should be clarified someone who is able to do so. Thanks. 209.251.153.11 (discuss) 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added some details on the different terms. Sadly I fear it will reamin confuse until you actually install and use the whole stuff. The concept is not easy to understand, we cannot do anything about it. If someone feels like he/she can provide a better explanation, feel free to contribute. --Ambrevar (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-written first paragraph
The first paragraph of this page is badly focused, jumping between pronunciation and history, and professional/casual tone. The sentence structure is valid, but the author uses word constructs which are somewhat awkward to English speakers. I have cleaned it up significantly.--Steelangel (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite
Mkline, you kept the claim that LaTeX lets you fully concentrate on the content, a claim which bugs me for a long time. It is wrong. Each and every user cares a lot about the layout. The process is just separated. One either concentrates a lot on content, or a lot on layout.

You have TeX.SX twice in the list at the bottom. You describe texample as the community, while it is just a site that collects tikz examples. The real community is at http://latex.org/forum/ --Johannes Bo (discuss • contribs) 07:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the sloppy link situation at the bottom; those are fixed. You'll hear no disagreement about LaTeX users caring plenty about layout - I just kept some of the previous wording because I was at a loss for how to word it better. I think what we're trying to express is the usefulness of separation of content and presentation; do you have suggestions for how to phrase things better? Mkline (discuss • contribs) 08:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)