Measuring "efficiency" in document prepration: Microsoft Word vs. LaTex

Re:Measuring "efficiency" in document prepration: Microsoft ... by tomjen3 on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @12:21AM (#25355630)

.title My concerns with the point made by Hacker News user gumby

If you were to write something like HTML, how would you do so in a manner that didn't involve raw text? Sure it might be [emph shown] in a marked up way, but then doesn't your LaTeX editor do this?

And if your editor does this, how can you be sure that the new markup language for documents are not, in fact, superior in readability and expressiveness to LaTeX?

I mean, the made up formatting I tried to show in this comment is more readable and extendable than LaTeX (in my eyes, anyway), but it is still raw text.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Measuring "efficiency" in document prepration: Microsoft ... by gumby on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @02:39AM (#25356267)

The article was Word vs a markup language like latex. I find the latter simpler to use.

Html wasn’t mentioned in the article but it is ok. I find latex easier and the result more attractive.

My editor doesn’t do any highlighting or anything like that. It does have syntax-dependent motion commands, which work better with LT than html.

[ Parent | on HN ]