Why do I bother? Unless you're in the printing and design industry this offers nothing over Word, does it?
If you don't write things with a fuck ton of math in it, don't bother.
You can 'fix' Word by adjusting the line spacing and kerning if you want.
>>51571446
It allows more control to the user than word/office, if your not planning on using thos functions then dont use it, if you need more freedom then use it.
Its just a tool like all other programs.
Stop being retarded OP and just think for a moment.
>>51571446
>latex + git >>> word+"track changes"
>latex equations >>> word equation editor
>>51571446
If Word meets all your needs keep using Word.
>>51571446
i like it more than word, cause it takes me forever to get word to do what i want. fumbling around with words shitty menu bar is annoying.
in latex i write a few lines or just copy and paste from other documents i've already done and everything just werks
>>51571457
I don't write any formulas or anything and I think this is a pretty narrow view. I use LaTeX a lot.
LaTeX has features that span various use cases - and nice-looking characters is one of them - but that's just one kind of superficial feature. LaTeX is plaintext, so it's more amenable to git/svn and all the diff'ing that goes along with that.
There are also things about Word that just bug the shit out of me. Like if you copy and paste something the wrong way, invisible formatting rules and quirks might (or might not! spin the wheel and take your chances) get copied over. You have to be careful about these formatting things that might or might not get carried from one place to the next, and that can get extremely frustrating.
So there's that, but if you're conforming to an established style, LaTeX is nice there too. If you're doing academic work, I don't think you'll ever be asked to submit a formal document without there being a template document. It's true that where there's a .tex template there's usually a .doc template, but this goes back to the previous point - the .doc template will show you how to do things, but replicating it is very much up to you (and little annoying things seem to conspire against you). In LaTeX everything is defined outside of the document itself, so you can trust that an ordered (i.e. numbered) list using\begin{enumerate} ... \end{enumerate}will *always* look the way the style wants.
The people who think "Word is good enough" tend to make awful LaTeX users. So if you think that Word is good enough, you probably shouldn't switch anyway.
>>51571446
don't forget you have to pay for office
>>51571582
LOL
>>51571595
i don't like stealing
>>51571616
DOUBLE LOL
because you want to have chapters work well in a big paper. Anon, you're not just writing two page essays are you?
Some of the teachers at my college won't even supervise your master thesis if you aren't writing it in LaTeX.
>>51571446
neat separation of presentation and content. swap in a new style and boom, a whole new look without changing a line.
>>51571518
Okay so all of this being said, I feel like the big issue preventing people from getting into latex (and certainly the thing that prevented me from getting into it) was the learning curve. If you can make the initial learning phase less cumbersome, you can get through it and really enjoy it.
This is my setup (with a lot of stuff blurred out, sorry) illustrates how I make this work pretty seamlessly. Of note are the following nice features:
- parenthetical citations are handled automatically by calling\cite{shortcode}. I could use a different format than numbers, but the NSF has a hard limit on the length of proposals and parenthetical citations indicating the last names and years would take more space (I know, this is nitpicky, but please don't judge).
- When I build, I can set it so that the output PDF highlights the line of "code" that's selected in Sublime Text 3. This and a number of other features is made available through LaTeXTools, a plugin for ST3.
- References (at the end) are all compiled, ordered, and formatted automatically. I can't put into words how fucking great this is. This has saved me countless hours of management in the last few months alone. I just hate the little details of how to format citations, and LaTeX and bibtex completely abstract it away for me.
If you're thinking about using LaTeX and you're using Sublime Text already, I definitely recommend using LaTeXTools and tinkering. I can find some other parts of this document that I can share more of (i.e. unblurred), but I'm nervous about revealing shit on 4chan.
>>51571446
>Just the printing and designing industry
Not quite right. A lot of academic papers, research publications and theses are written using LaTeX. TeX and LaTeX are embraced in the academic and scientific community for decades now.
>>51571622
well at least i have the moral high ground
feels good to be good
>not using LyX
It's like using Word but with the prettiness of LaTeX.
>>51571644
This is true, but speaking from a position of a PhD student I can tell you that efforts are made to make MS Word templates available to people. It's definitely not a requirement to use LaTeX - even in CS - although certainly it makes your life easier.
>>51571638
there's not much to learn in latex. there are hundreds of templates that you can use with small adjustments
>>51571638
how is your sublime LaTeXTools combo compared to TeXMaker?
>>51571656
True. As a master student myself I'm not forced to use LaTeX, but it really does make my life easier here. I can't speak for other universities of course.
>>51571638
Don't forget that if you're using Firefox for your research, you can use Zotero to automatically compile a BibTeX bibliography *as you find sources on the internet*, before you even start writing.
>>51571658
That's true, but for *years* before I got into my PhD program I kept coming back to LaTeX thinking that "this time it'll click" and every time I looked around online the guides took the same tone of "don't learn, just download this or that template and avoid digging around underneath the surface". That was incredibly frustrating, and some of the syntactic stuff seems inconsistent, frustrating, and certainly outdated. As an example, you can bold text by saying{\textbf hello}
OR by doing{\bf hello}
which is just fucking insane. I know that the latter is deprecated, but being confused about a new markup language that seems as weird as LaTeX and then discovering all these weird gotcha issues doesn't endear the language to a new learner.
I think in the end it was the citation management that got me to give up trying to make sense of it, and once I stopped trying it proved to be in my best interest. I know there are citation managers for Word and whatnot, but nothing is as convenient as my ever-growing .bib file with all the conference papers, journal articles, books, and web pages I've ever found worth referencing.
OP here. The reason I'm so fucking mad at Latex is because, despite being nice and all, it can be very obscure as to why stuff isn't working and the log files aren't of any help. For example, I'm writing my thesis and I'm using the natbib package to manage my citations.
In pic related you can see that the citations are in place correctly, but they're not compressed or separated by commas.\usepackage[sort&compress,comma,numbers,super]{natbib}
This is how I'm calling the package. There is NO indication what so ever why this doesn't work and it makes me wanna pull my hair out.
>>51571662
I never used TeXMaker much because the idea of having multiple editors for multiple languages really annoys me for some reason. I can't speak more to it than that, but I find the ST+LaTeXTools setup to be all but seamless. Building is just ^B and you can set it up so you keep focus in the editor (so you can keep editing with occasional ^B taps and see the document updating "in the background").
>>51571678
I think this is the case at every university. I'm at one of the top 5, so we have insane amounts of resources to make this stuff easier for us (and the inventor of TeX still occasionally drops by - I met him during my admit visit), but the nice thing about good TeX templates is that you can borrow them from anywhere and make them usable for your needs.
>>51571688
That's true. I don't use Firefox but Google Scholar even offers bibtex format references (although it's a little clunky to copy/paste them into your library). As your .bib library grows you find yourself needing to add references less and less frequently, so it's not really that big a deal. I'm thinking about sitting down and spending time putting all my physical books (some 130) into my bibtex file, but that would be time-consuming.
Then again, I did take the time to make a json file of the books I have, so I should at least be able to automate it (to some extent).
>>51571658
>hundreds of templates
>implying they are not deprecated or one of your teacher haven't obliged you to use a custom layout so the redefinition part is lengthier than the said report.
>>51571712
>>51571733 here
that looks like a footnote. Are you using \cite{...}? Mind if I see that snipped of the code (and ideally whatever else you can share)?
I'm not that competent with LaTeX but I like to think of myself as a pretty good debugger of weird LaTeX behavior (maybe this is why I like LaTeX more than Word now, because searching for explanations to weird Word behavior tends to yield a lot of "Oh God How Did This Get Here I Am Not Good With Computer" sorts of shit).
>>51571756
sorry, meant "snippet".
>>51571629
That's dumb. It shouldn't matter how you make something as long as the end-result is good.
>>51571787
I agree, but I, as a teacher, wouldn't lose my time helping following typographic and typesetting rules when there's a package available at CPAN.
>>51571787
I'm the increasingly drunk longwinded PhD student in this thread.
I generally agree with the sentiment, but if the advisor wants to take a reasonably hands-on role with the thesis, then asking them to use a format they don't like (like MS Word's .docx) can be a deal-breaker. I've done SharePoint Word documents with people in the past and they've always been a little painful, and those have been conference papers (10 pages give or take the references section).
The end result might be the thing that ultimately matters, but if you ask an advisor to take a look at your thesis draft and nothing is familiar to them, they'll have trouble being as efficient as they'd like to be because you're forcing them out of their workflow.
When/if I become a professor who advises students, I would probably strongly encourage people to learn whatever the nearest equivalent to LaTeX will be (probably still LaTeX), and make it clear to them that firing up MS Word with all of its updates (pic related, I opened it just now *knowing* from experience that this would happen) will mean I'll get them feedback later than if they sent me a LaTeX document. It's not meant to be punitive; it's just that multi-gigabyte updates tend to discourage me from bothering to open this shit.
>>51571828
sorry, to be clear, when I pointed out that the documents were conference papers of 10 pages, I meant to illustrate that these were relatively short and limited in scope. We had (at most) about 40 references. Imagine trying to handle 10x as many references without third party libraries in Word.
Actually, don't.
>>51571778
>>51571756
http://pastebin.com/FaEBjX9R
http://pastebin.com/XTqKBkRu
If you could figure out what is wrong I would be forever grateful.
>>51571446
But does it has word spell check?
LaTeX syntax is terrible. I don't see why people don't just use RST or markdown with CSS instead to make it "do what you want".
LaTeX, being quite old, is really due for a replacement. I still use it a lot as it's the only tool I know of where mathematical notation isn't a pain, but I can see how people would rather use something else. That said, being so used to pretty LaTeX documents, seeing work from other facilitates that was obviously made in Word looks very much amateurish. It's odd that Microsoft can't get their documents to look as great, I've always wondered why there isn't an "export as pretty PDF" option.
>>51571886
I'm taking a look now - no promises though! Also I'm a little buzzed but that's wearing off.
To be clear, what's the behavior you're trying to achieve? Do you want "lorem ipsem \cite{foo,bar}" to compile to "lorem ipsum [1, 2]"? or do you still want superscript and all that?
>>51571712
>it can be very obscure as to why stuff isn't working and the log files aren't of any help
This is very true. Worst of all, pdflatex will often refuse to be terminated by Ctrl+C. Really this is not acceptable behavior.
>>51571915
adding to this, isn't it bad to mix style with content? It's like embedding CSS in HTML.
>>51571941
"lorem ipsem \cite{foo,bar,drop,the,bass}" should come out as
"lorem ipsum^1-5" numerical citations as superscript and compressed. I'm giving natbib all the correct options but it's just not doing it.
>>51571956
Well you aren't supposed to add styling information in the text body itself, rather you use things like \section to structure your document.
>>51571894
Install you own spellchecker.
>>51571949
Type «X», it will terminate. But I would rather use something else, like XeTex (or XeLaTeX).
>>51571957
You aren't doing that, you're actually spamming the \cite command. Maybe that's why it don't works as you want.
>>51571928
It's because by default, Word turns off automatic kerning and ligatures which makes documents look like shit.
This is all automatic in LaTeX.
>>51571964
I haven't used LaTeX in a while... I prefer Sphinx with RST markup.
Don't you have to like... embed some styles though for tables and such? In RST, you'd define a new class and style it in your theme.
/code .. badass:section::
My badass-section with *italics* and **emphasis**.
>>51571957
ah okay. I noticed as soon as I gave the example that you were using \cite differently. You're calling cite on each reference independently, but if you call \cite and use commas to separate the citations you'll get them compressed and whatnot. Here's a screenshot of what I mean.
Also I'm taking this chance to illustrate another feature of LaTeXTools - if you use a bibtex file it'll reference that whenever you call \cite (or add a comma indicating another citation) so you can sort of fuzzily search for the citation you want rather than try to memorize all the short codes.
I love LaTeX, but my major gripe with it is that you need quite a few packages + hacks/workarounds for it to be truly usable, not to mention the syntax is a real bitch to work with at times.
>>51571983
>>51572011
Fuck me, you're right. Thank you so fucking much I was about to jump off the damn window. Have a great day, Anon!
>>51571915
plus, Sphinx supports LaTeX code blocks as well and can be rendered with mathjax or pngmath.
>>51572033
I have to admit LaTeX has all these warts that make it really frustrating. In that sense, it's kind of like R in that regard - for some insane reason, R persists in being popular despite being an ugly language and frankly not that fast (a lot of people I know in *industry* who want to do stats/data analysis mostly use other languages, sometimes just parallelizing the work, and I'm seeing a growing trend of using d3 to do data visualizations).
Still, LaTeX has few really good competitors for formal papers - I don't think I can rig up HTML or Markdown to output a paper conforming to ACM/SIG styles - so mostly people put work into making LaTeX less gaspingly frustrating to use.
>>51572040
no problem. I feel like as you learn these things the tips tend to stick better than the tips and tricks I learned in Word, but maybe it was because the underlying logic in LaTeX was a little more transparent than in Word. In any case, hopefully this'll stick and you'll start making connections and finding solutions like these without coming close to jumping through a window.
>>51572077
http://speedata.github.io/publisher/
This looks quite interesting, might give it a shot later. Saw it posted on the TeX stackexchange.
>>51572077
>>51572123
LaTeX's still here because it has a huge database. Huge enough to be a pain in the ass when you install it (over 4GB). You can find solutions for almost everything.
>>51571446
latex documents look really nice. Way better than word. Most maths exam papers in my university are made in tex.
>>51572151
>use word with computer modern font
>'wow anon your document looks really nice in latex'
>>51572123
Looks interesting, but similar to >>51572136's point I think there's too much inertia/mass under the LaTeX umbrella to convince me to move away from it. Staying with LaTeX means I *know* there'll be a template file for pretty much any formal document I need to write, that there'll be hundreds of relevant results to problems I encounter, and that there'll be tons of packages (some of them good!) if I ever want to do something that's not competently handled in the standard library.
I think if I ever got more competent with R I'd feel the same way, but for now I'm too savvy with d3, JS, and Python, and not savvy enough with R to make that argument in data analysis and visualization.
>>51572077
>for some insane reason, R persists in being popular despite being an ugly language and frankly not that fast
It's Free Software and comes prepackaged for a shitload of platforms.
>>51572208
yeah. it's the inertia issue as with LaTeX. I wonder if someone prolific enough and insightful enough will figure out what libraries really need to be duplicated to win over a sufficient percentage of the community to shift that to another language/library.
>>51572174
I like your style
>>51571446
>2015
>people still complaining what latex is good for
Yes there are other tools and Yes you can live without it. Now fuck off.
>>51572251
come on, don't be a jerk.
>>51571595
>>51571622
what a nigger
>>51572306
again, don't be a jerk. piracy is just a thing that happens (he shouldn't mock people for not pirating shit, but whatever; descending to his level won't accomplish anything).
>>51571446
>this offers nothing over Word
First of all, it won't crash when you try to write your 1000+ page thesis.
It offers you a formula editor that doesn’t crash after one or two lines as well as nice tools to draw graphs and trees.
>>51572326
>1000+ page thesis
>using hyperbolic examples
>to make a point
not even once
>>51572326
can LaTeX *really* not deal with that sort of scale?
Does anyone know a better bibliography manager than Zotero? It's bibtex export is a lackluster: It doesn't allow you to define the citation keyword beforehand and the "shorten journal name" function is broken.
>>51572358
He's talking about Word being problematic with large documents, which is true, but how many 1000 page documents do you expect to work on in your life?
You're not Elliot Rodger writing his manifesto.
If there's a single thing about LaTeX and that landscape that's really mind-blowing, it's the citation management. Maybe this is just because referencing other works is such a core aspect of academic writing ("stand on the shoulders of giants, etc..."), but it's like a whole big chunk of the pie chart that was my life just sublimated in an instant.
>>51572325
pirating software is just bad, and pirating office is even worse because the free-software alternatives handle pretty much everything
pretty well; it has been years since i saw major fuckups in the formatting of .doc files opened by libreoffice.
Pirating office is not justifiable in 2015; if you need the "advanced stuff" only office has, just buy it.
>>51572382
free software exists. I think it's pretty charitable to say it "pretty much handles everything pretty well".
I want to agree with your sentiment, but I'm living in the ivory tower, so it feels entitled. I have access to MS Office and all sorts of free shit. I've interned at MSR where they gave me all sorts of free shit I didn't need or even ask for. It's *easy* for me to say "just buy it, you cheap asshole", but maybe I'm not considering people who don't have the handouts I've gotten.
Also I'm drinking again so if that didn't make sense I'll be happy to post an even drunker, longer, more rambling post.
>>51571915
LOL
>>51571828
Oh, yes that is a very different thing. I thought we were talking about documents where only the final results will be turned in.
>>51572337
>implying I didn't work at my college's IT department
>implying every year when thesis deadline rolls around I don't have to deal with dozens of students having issues with Word choking on their huge fat documents with loads of references and diagrams
>implying this isn't the same for all college IT departments
Yeah, sure thing buddy.
>>51572432
I understand your position, but trust me, people don't (usually) use softwares for advanced/power-user features, they (again, usually) want it for having the most shining new thing or the "most complete" office suit, as publicized.
But people don't feel like paying so much for software, so what do they do? They pirate it, since it is pretty easy, arguably easier than extracting the credit card and paying for it.
And if some professionist says that he needs such software for his work, he's pretty much obliged to buy it, so i don't believe anybody that says that he pirates for work.
>>51572382
Nigga, have you ever tried opening an MS Word document that uses ANY sort of advanced formatting on Libreoffice? It's fucking shit.
>>51572533
Ah, yeah. If an advisor who only cares about the final draft says they'll only work with students that turn in a document compiled in LaTeX, I would question their appreciation of priorities. If someone sends me a plaintext document that articulates a really insightful point with really excellently backed up arguments, it would detract slightly that they didn't do it in a good forma, but it would be insane of me not to work with that.
Then again, as I write that I notice that I ignore emails from students asking for internships and shit if their email is shittily formatted because it tends to make me think that they're just sending me a canned email, and that feels pretty similar to the issue you bring up.
>>51572543
I worked in my undergrad university's tech support as well. We never saw thousand-page documents. PhD theses tend to be in the 150-300 page range, unless you're attaching all the references along with the document itself, which is something I've never seen or even heard of, but could imagine if someone didn't know what they were doing.
>>51572568
>advanced formatting
would gladly see it
also i was talking about normalfags, if you need it for work that's ok, there's plenty of closed source software that's for work only; the point is: if you work with it, buy it
>>51572610
not him, but i don't think he's going to come up with any advanced formatting examples. what the hell does "advanced" mean anyway? print is print.
that being said, latex gives you this nice confidence that lists and bullets and all sorts of other shit will come out in whatever weird way the other party requests (assuming they give you a style format), or at the very least in a relatively consistent, even programmatic, way.
>>51572642
Except that he seem to doesn't know how Word fuck is own formatting when you have the fantastic idea of using another version.
>>51571474
>more freedom
how comes not every amerifag uses it then?
>>51572677
i'm pretty drunk so i'm not sure i understood you. if you mean that Word will interpret old versions of its own document differently, that's certainly a risk, but I've never seen that happening.
Although I agree that in principle you're right - you could end up with totally different output in MS Word 2020 and it's not super clear how (or whether) you could interpret a docx file differently.
Certainly LaTeX has the transparency, to say nothing of consistency, to make documents more stable.
>>51572364
better bibtex plugin
>>51572642
>what the hell does "advanced" mean anyway? print is print.
that was just a pretext to demonstrate that office suites have failed to the objective of creating a open standard that works everywhere, just see this>>51572677
latex is always affidable
>>51572717
thank you
>mfw someone gives a talk and his figures and formulas are smudgy because he imported them as a JPG
The best part of latex is tikz+bibtex+beamer and that you don't have to bother with other programs and how they deal with math.
>>51572724
I don't think that an open standard was ever the objective of office suites though. I think their goal was to provide features that open standards can't provide.
That being said, I still think they fail to deliver, but it's worth thinking about what the target is.
>>51572713
But I saw it, and not only with «advanced» stuff but also with «normies lvl» ones. From newer to older versions, as well as from older to newer version. LaTeX interpretors will complain that foo or bar is deprecated or just refuse to go further, but in the first case it'll render it properly and in the second tell you what's the problem.
>>51572777
>importing them as a jpg
that's even worse than 'not using latex', at least export as pngs.
>>51572796
This doesn't even help that much, especially with scaling. Export as ps or pdf
>>51572790
I'll believe that it's happened, but I've never opened a word document that rendered differently than it was supposed to because the version i was using was too new. what usually happens is that i send someone a .docx and they can't open it because they're using Windows 98 and god knows what version of word.
not that that should be acceptable anyway, but i'm a stickler about avoiding exaggeration. I think that if someone can't prove their argument for or against X or Y, then the credibility of the whole camp deteriorates. I think we can make a really rock solid argument for using LaTeX without using arguments that are difficult (or impossible) to prove.
>>51572780
>I don't think that an open standard was ever the objective of office suites though
It is with Libreoffice.
>>51572817
true, but at least you don't have to worry about artifacts.
but, true as fuck.
>>51572845
oh sorry i was thinking about proprietary office suites like MS Office. You're totally right, but I wonder if really comprehensive suites just don't lend themselves to interoperability.
>>51572834
It's not exaggeration nor difficult to prove, as it append between 2008 and 2010 versions.
However, I agree, we need better, and more organised, arguments (and demystification) , or just more «commons» ones, in order to convince /g/uys here.
They are, for commons ones, the advanced font rendering provided by, for example, XeTeX (pic related), uniformity, mathematical support, retro-compatibility, etc. Maybe a /TG/ as TeX General to shill a little bit.
>>51573002
yep, definitely true. it's good to see rational thinking in an entrenched debate. you certainly don't see much of it in the Mac/PC debate (on either side).
>>51573002
I'd like the idea of /tg/ every once in a while. I still want to learn a lot more, and get more familiar with it. I generally end up having a search engine open side by side with whatever I'm doing, so it should include a pastebin or something in the op with resources or beginner's guides or something
>>51573076
>>51573002
sorry i have literally no idea what you're talking about. can you elaborate?
>>51571446
I can't fucking stand this logo, looks so obnoxious.
>>51573102
it's really annoying to type, i'll grant you that.
>>51573028
Maybe because I don't lost 80$ to get a TeXLive snapshot and I'm always searching for something better.
>>51573076
>once in a while
I think as long as it's not two per hours it's pretty good for a general thread.
>>51573092
Like a /ftl/, /ptg/, /mkg/. A thread to discuss about TeX derivatives, like LaTeX, or alternatives, with docs, and so on.
>>51573129
oh you mean a running thread.
i'd be willing to make one as needed, but i get the sense that it's not that popular on /g/. wouldn't want to get banned
>>51573147
>implying smartphone, games, or other shitpost is more legitimate than a LaTeX thread.
Using latex is like writing a rtf or pdf file using a plain-text editor. It's possible but you all are idiots. Inb4 I use a visual editor, yes that's what word is.
>>51573248
no i just mean that if i make a thread and nobody replies to it i'll eventually get banned. i don't think there's enough interest to justify an ongoing latex thread.
if you start one and it stays for 200 posts I'll gladly keep them going.
>>51573335
Just shill harder, I want to say. That's how mpv become popular. It may be worth giving a try.
>>51573423
i don't want to shill. the backlash would be too much for me to bother fighting against.
>>51573430
I think it would work if you've got some theme going on. Look at this thread for example. There's general discussion going on, but it also helps that there's the discussion about making a general and that there's the op with a specific issue that people can use as a starting point for discussion. If the op is made well I think a thread definitely has a chance of attracting attention.
>>51573650
I think it's kind of like a pressure cooker. I doubt there's enough interest to sustain interest in an ongoing latex thread, but every month or so i think there's enough going on in people's lives to justify a thread.
>>51573674
Agreed. But that's the issue, most people think that their input is too small to justify starting a thread, so they might wait for one to start while less meaningful topics thrive on this board
>>51573768
true. I would be happy to start a thread every few days/every week if i could offer something - even something small - that might be useful, like a library or something.
maybe i'll spend some time thinking about how to demonstrate/implement some packages to be useful to people. then i'd make threads pretty regularly.
>>51571446
I just use it because it gives me an alternative to using ms word and is free.
>>51572581
It's not even that. It's one thing to request that the document be turned in in a certain format (such as PostScript or PDF). It's another thing to require that it be created using a specific method, something which I don't think can even be verified.
Requiring that the document is turned in in one out of certain formats is definitely reasonable - you cannot expect them to learn any format you may use (although only accepting PostScript and PDF may be a bit narrower than I'd prefer.)
However, requiring that they create it using a certain language, or whatever, is very weird in my opinion since it is none of their business.
This is all assuming that they do not work with you in the process of creating the document, of course.
>>51573928
Formats request never where a problem, as my teacher recommended Pandoc in these cases.
Has anyone managed to get Unicode working right in Groff?
>>51574661
Don't you have to wait for the next major version in order to use Unicode ?
getting shit done/engineer tier
>Word
getting shit done/designer tier
>inDesign
lmao idiot/autist/compiling text/scientist tier
>LaTeX
>>51574913
I've got at least partial unicode support in 1.22. I'm not sure what's on the changelog for the upcoming version.
>>51575038
Well, the man page says you can output in unicode with «-T utf8».
>>51574636
It's still limited to certain formats.
>>51575122
That's terminal output. It doesn't play well at all with -ms -Tpdf.
>>51571446
>printing and design industry
this is the bait within the bait
>>51575400
I can't help you then. But I have a question too, do you use MOM ? How it's against LaTeX (in term of scientific support, like equivalents to chemfig and others) ?
>>51575019
I wholeheartedly enjoyed the moment when Windows acolytes on /g/ realised everyone around them had their sides gone because "gaymen OS" so they switched their approach and started shilling the engineer/professional™ tool™ meme to boost their self esteem.
>>51575455
I don't actually use MOM, since it sucks horrible ass compared to LaTeX. I was just trying groff out as an export format for WordGrinder files or for pretty PDF manpages. Turns out LaTeX is still superior if you're turning shit in to a PDF.
For writing simple texts with automatic nice formatting, LaTeX is good. For formulas, it has a disgusting but powerful syntax. But fuck myself for trying to write a thesis with lots of graphs and figures with it.
