From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 5 22:05:00 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB6F16A417 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 22:05:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jahnke@sonatabio.com) Received: from smtp.wizwire.com (smtp.wizwire.com [209.218.100.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8DD13C468 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 22:04:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jahnke@sonatabio.com) Received: from [192.168.0.100] (207-104-43-151.starstream.net [207.104.43.151]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.wizwire.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l95M4HrG004266; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:04:18 -0700 From: Frank Jahnke To: michaelgrunewald@yahoo.fr In-Reply-To: <86k5q1gs8t.fsf@Llea.celt.neu> References: <1191604254.2944.12.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com> <86k5q1gs8t.fsf@Llea.celt.neu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Sonata Biosciences, Inc. Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:04 -0700 Message-Id: <1191621784.2944.60.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-WizWire-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-WizWire-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jahnke@sonatabio.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Equations X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: jahnke@sonatabio.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:05:00 -0000 On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 23:34 +0200, michaelgrunewald@yahoo.fr wrote: > It seems there is no reason to be > optimistic about the existence of an ``office-like'' program > that deals smartly with equations. The input method from MathType (which is what WP uses) actually is quite good. The formatting, however... > I am always a bit surprised that > TeX was released in 78 (before my birth!) and---despite its algorithms > are published---its output quality remains unmatched [1] by common > programs. Why these programs do not apply TeX's strategies to solve > their problems? This makes me wonder. This is a good question. TeX didn't really hit its stride until about 1989 (with Metafont and the language freeze), and the effort learned a lot from troff. Nevertheless, I am always struck by how ugly is the type that Word produces. You can always tell. I've read about how sophisticated its algorithm for this or that is, but the end result is terribly inferior to both troff and TeX. I don't really know why -- and it extends beyond the hyphenation algorithm to things like inter-word kerning and type face formation -- but I just don't like the way Word documents look. Maybe one of these days I'll look into it. I also find the insistence of the TeX community to use the dreadful CM font family to be misguided. There's a reason that the classical fonts are classics.