On 12.09.2018 00:48, Noeck wrote:
I guess the wording might be just a bit misleading, but I disagree with
that. Yes, LaTeX is good for scientific papers. But that's not because
looks don't matter. It's because of the beautiful look of mathematical
formulae, the clear and automatic structure of your text, the
cross-references, the automatic and consistent layout etc. Most of all
it is because the defaults and many documentclasses are made for
scientific papers. The author of TeX actually cares a lot about beauty.
All that makes a LaTeX paper much more beautiful than let's say a word
document. And you can actually influence the layout a lot (cf.
KOMA-Script etc.).
You’re right, my wording was misleading. What I was trying to say is
that a scientific article doesn’t need an individual, characteristic
look. Of course I’m aware of the aspects of typographic aesthetics and
that Knuth’s prime incentive for starting the whole thing was good (and
thus beautiful) typesetting of formulae. But I hope you get my point
here: with a poster, the visual style is at the core of every specific
one you make, and there’s a far greater need for the _immediate_
feedback of a WYSIWYG environment.
And, Urs, I understand (and probably needn’t tell you) that this is not
completely black-and-white: with templates and styles many WYSIWYG
programs certainly allow to reuse an existing design for new contents,
at least if you use them properly.
Best, Simon
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
