Re: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Hero_xbd!.RRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear all, I am an undergraduate major in natural science. I am choosing a scientific paper editor for my remaining lifetime. Recently I find it hard to decide between TeXmacs and Auctex. I hope to have some advice from you gurus on the list. For Auctex, 1. I live in Emacs, so Auctex is natural. Opening new TeXmacs window is a bother. 2. In Auctex, I can fine tune everything in LaTeX. While in TeXmacs, sometimes things go weird and hard to correct. 3. Auctex is fast, and is able to run on OLPC-XO -- I have the potential to use it everywhere. TeXmacs is too slow. For TeXmacs, 1. Formula editing is very efficient, I can even carry out my deduction lively (and embedding CAS session, e.g. maxima). While Auctex, even with preview, edits and prints formula in raw LaTeX. It can be a nightmare deducing equations without a pencil on Auctex -- and I am forced to interpret my reasoning into LaTeX. 2. Figure embedding is more friendly. With Auctex, my figure fly up and down wildly -- maybe I am not familiar enough with raw LaTeX. Hmmm. Maybe there should be a way to call a embedded TeXmacs instance fromwithin Auctex just to edit formulae and import figures. If I am ignorant to some good ways to do things well. Please do point them out. Thanks in advance. I'm no guru (and perhaps you should ask from advice from real users, not gurus). I use xemacs/aucTeX, but from time to time I ask myself the same question that you ask. I use TeXmacs for a while, but I never feel comfortable with it, and I return to AucTeX. Lately I've been exploring LyX seriously. I'm finding that Lyx is an excellent choice for most purposes. (It gives me trouble with tables, but that might be because I'm still learning.) The biggest problem for me with LyX is that it doesn't have the emacs key bindings, and my fingers know them quite well by now. But the decision is very personal. There are lots of solutions, and each one is loved by someone somewhere. hth, gary -- 续本达 Xu, Benda Academic Talent Program on Fundamental Science of Mathematics and Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, P.R.China http://learn.tsinghua.edu.cn:8080/2005012177/index.html http://thirsty.phys.tsinghua.edu.cn/MyWiki/heroxbd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex
A Dimarts 22 Abril 2008, Gary Pajer va escriure: On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Hero_xbd!.RRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear all, I am an undergraduate major in natural science. I am choosing a scientific paper editor for my remaining lifetime. Recently I find it hard to decide between TeXmacs and Auctex. I hope to have some advice from you gurus on the list. For Auctex, 1. I live in Emacs, so Auctex is natural. Opening new TeXmacs window is a bother. 2. In Auctex, I can fine tune everything in LaTeX. While in TeXmacs, sometimes things go weird and hard to correct. 3. Auctex is fast, and is able to run on OLPC-XO -- I have the potential to use it everywhere. TeXmacs is too slow. For TeXmacs, 1. Formula editing is very efficient, I can even carry out my deduction lively (and embedding CAS session, e.g. maxima). While Auctex, even with preview, edits and prints formula in raw LaTeX. It can be a nightmare deducing equations without a pencil on Auctex -- and I am forced to interpret my reasoning into LaTeX. 2. Figure embedding is more friendly. With Auctex, my figure fly up and down wildly -- maybe I am not familiar enough with raw LaTeX. Hmmm. Maybe there should be a way to call a embedded TeXmacs instance fromwithin Auctex just to edit formulae and import figures. If I am ignorant to some good ways to do things well. Please do point them out. Thanks in advance. I'm no guru (and perhaps you should ask from advice from real users, not gurus). I use xemacs/aucTeX, but from time to time I ask myself the same question that you ask. I use TeXmacs for a while, but I never feel comfortable with it, and I return to AucTeX. Lately I've been exploring LyX seriously. I'm finding that Lyx is an excellent choice for most purposes. (It gives me trouble with tables, but that might be because I'm still learning.) The biggest problem for me with LyX is that it doesn't have the emacs key bindings, and my fingers know them quite well by now. But the decision is very personal. There are lots of solutions, and each one is loved by someone somewhere. I prefer kile and not LyX. It's better to write in pure LateX than pseudo as LyX, IMHO. Leo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex
From: Hero_xbd!.RRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:10:49 +0800 1. Formula editing is very efficient, I can even carry out my deduction lively (and embedding CAS session, e.g. maxima). While Auctex, even with preview, edits and prints formula in raw LaTeX. I use WhizzyTeX (available as whizzytex debian package) with emacs. You still edit the latex source directly in emacs, however you get live-updated dvi/pdf rendered output in external viewer. For me this solution has the best of the two worlds: wysiwyg vs. plain-text editing. Cheers, Jan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex
Hero_xbd!.RRR wrote: Dear all, I am an undergraduate major in natural science. I am choosing a scientific paper editor for my remaining lifetime. Recently I find it hard to decide between TeXmacs and Auctex. I hope to have some advice from you gurus on the list. I can only tell you my own experience, which is that when I was a student (some years ago, sigh), I too thought that editing formulas in LaTeX was unpleasant. Now I do it without thinking. I think many working scientists use (pseudo) LaTeX even as an informal notation to express mathematics in Email etc... So I would learn raw LaTeX since I think it is a useful skill, and will pay off in the long run. My own idea about tools is that for things I don't do very often, I like graphical interfaces, but for other things I prefer to let my fingers do the work without bothering my brain very much. Typing formulas is something I do _very_ often, so... Good luck, David PS. WhizzyTeX sounds cool. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex
Am Dienstag 22 April 2008 16:06:48 schrieb Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda: A Dimarts 22 Abril 2008, Gary Pajer va escriure: But the decision is very personal. There are lots of solutions, and each one is loved by someone somewhere. I prefer kile and not LyX. It's better to write in pure LateX than pseudo as LyX, IMHO. Seconded. I prefer kile as well. I tried LyX (Years ago, mind you) and found it somewhat uncomfortable. And LateX isn't hard to learn. In fact, you don't need to learn all that much - just copy and paste bits of layout that you like from somewhere else. Perhaps that is a big advantage of kile (or other forms of direct editing). All layout considerations or problems you have will already have been worked out by someone else. Google, copy, paste. Concentrate on your scientific work instead. Be warned though: you'll likely get as many different opinions as there are people on this list. HTH, Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex
On 22/04/2008, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I prefer kile and not LyX. It's better to write in pure LateX than pseudo as LyX, IMHO. But no Emacs-like keybindings? Moving wrists away from homerow keys is for chumps. ;-) - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex
On 22/04/2008, Luca Ingianni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All layout considerations or problems you have will already have been worked out by someone else. Google, copy, paste. Concentrate on your scientific work instead. There's lots of ugly LaTeX out there that uses crutches to provide one-time brittle solutions. Lots and lots. I know very few people who actually write beautiful LaTeX. I do hope you don't copy paste without understanding why you are using the LaTex that you do. ;-) - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:44:21 -0400, Gary Pajer wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Hero_xbd!.RRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recently I find it hard to decide between TeXmacs and Auctex. Lately I've been exploring LyX seriously. I'm finding that Lyx is an I'll strongly second Gary on the choice of LyX as an alternative worth considering. Although I do most of my writing in Emacs with auctex, and I highly recommend this route if you live in Emacs most of time (as I do), I do use LyX at times. It does a great job at equations, tables, figures, etc. One great advantage of LyX is that it generates very clean LaTex code which you can subsequently tinker with if desired/necessary. Also, LyX can be a great tool for learning LaTeX: do what you need in LyX, export the document in LaTeX format and explore! I must admit that I never did get to grips with texmacs when I tried it (many!) years ago. My experience might be different now, of course. The biggest problem for me with LyX is that it doesn't have the emacs key bindings, and my fingers know them quite well by now. I agree although most are right and the majority of the rest can be customised. My main problem with the bindings is that all the other bits of Emacs (calc-mode, maxima-mode, diary, ...) are not in LyX! ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choose between TeXmacs and Auctex
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:47 +0200, Rafa Rodríguez Galván wrote: Hello. I agree with the previous e-mails and I think that the combination of LaTeX + emacs is, in the long term, the best choice. 1. Formula editing is very efficient, I can even carry out my deduction lively (and embedding CAS session, e.g. maxima). I am a regular user of scientific free software, especially Octave and Maxima. In addition to specific modes for these programs, Emacs allows you to embed them, using it's own buffer. You can also edit a Maxima or Octave script and send the contents of the buffer (or a region, current line, etc.) to the embedded session, that will display the results. Really? Does it work with, say, cxref as well? I love cxref's latex documentation extraction from source code, and the ability to put equations right there next to the lines that implement them. But I have longed for an environment which would do latex syntax highlighting right in a .c file comment -- not to mention a preview! -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
