1

There's been an idea in my mind for a while about a comparison of these two kinds of software, that I think I read somewhere. I would like to come back to the reading, about LaTeX, but I don't find the source.

The point is that, to compare both systems, an analogy was introduced. Conventional word processors would be equivalent to using a typing machine, while LaTeX would allow you to truly typeset your work, if needed, as in a Gutenberg's press, but with lots of available automation, to make the comparison fair... Even with the typing machines getting each day more forgotten, it kept as an interesting introduction to LaTeX in my mind.

Where can I find that idea elaborated? (I consider English but also Spanish as the possible languages for the text).

EDIT:

The question is about finding a specific reading I barely remember, where this analogy is introduced, not about finding comparisons or asking about differences between typesetting systems.

Andrestand
  • 1,085
  • 1
    A comparison between Word and LaTeX was published, but it was stacked against LaTeX. (This is not just my opinion.) One of the "tests" asked that a document be replicated. With a WYSIWYG system, such things as bold are individually marked, but a LaTeX document would start with a \documentclass, which would make much of this automatic (bold title and section headings, for instance), but no provision was made for this. Instead, it was, by the design of the test, required to treat LaTeX as a WYSIWYG system, which is nonsense. – barbara beeton Jul 17 '22 at 14:23
  • I don't think there's such a thing already but there's Why should I use LaTeX? - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange. – user202729 Jul 17 '22 at 16:00
  • 2
    @barbarabeeton For reference, the paper is Knauff & Nejasmic (2014): An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used in Academic Research and Development It has been widely criticized for its flawed methodology of having both Word and LaTeX users trying to recreate a given layout, totally missing the point of scientific writing. – Ingmar Jul 18 '22 at 16:05
  • @Ingmar -- I actually know that, but was unwilling to publicize it because, even if it's so badly done, a lot of people want to believe it. And I'm sick and tired of "big lie" discussions. – barbara beeton Jul 18 '22 at 16:09
  • Right. Well, I think it speaks for itself, and it's out there, only a Google search away … Whoever finds the link on this site, however, probably (hopefully) has kept enough of an open mind to be able to see it for what it is. – Ingmar Jul 18 '22 at 16:15
  • I shall say the most important part of the paper Knauff and Nejasmic (2014) is the correction note: This article was republished on March 30, 2015, to correct the sizing and placement of the figures; none of the article content was changed. The publisher apologizes for the original layout errors. Please download this article again to view the corrected version. The originally published, uncorrected article and the republished, corrected article are provided here for reference.. It is the statement that contradicts the whole paper. – FHZ Jul 18 '22 at 18:50

0 Answers0