Dnia Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 08:51:03AM -0500, Michael Saunders napisał(a):
Because I think it might be possible to produce better output with Context than with LaTeX (is this true?). My experience has been quite different from yours. I got up an running with LaTeX in a week (in 1995), found the documentation clear and almost any effect I wanted easy to achieve with well-documented packages that never seriously conflicted. This, on the other hand, is a nightmare.
Yep. But when you actually run into one of these problems in LaTeX, you are often more or less left alone - unlike ConTeXt and this list. A few examples: tikz (for some obscure reason) breaks some functionality of empheq; align in intertext in align (yes, I needed something like this!) in AMS-LaTeX doesn't work; hacking the (otherwise excellent) amsrefs package (or any AMS-LaTeX package, for that matter) is a real pain, but sometimes you just need it (for example, amsthm may be a standard, but it just sucks in quite a few respects!). ============ My general thought on this discussion: someone said "why don't people switch from LaTeX to ConTeXt if ConTeXt is better?". The answer is obvious to me. First: 99% maths journals accept LaTeX, \epsilon of them (if any) accept ConTeXt. Second: people still use their LaTeX 2.09 preambles from the nineties, and spending even 30 minutes on learning a new package (or just not using $$ ... $$ but \[ ... \] or anything) seems impossible for them. Third: sadly, nearly anyone just does not care whether the results are beautiful or ugly; people (I'm talking about mathematicians now) use (La|AMS|Con)TeX(t) not because it is better than (word|OO), but because that is what journals want. Personally, I use both LaTeX and ConTeXt: LaTeX when I need something done quickly or when I want to share some code with others (who usually use LaTeX), and ConTeXt when I have some time and want to learn something new (or when I have a ready template which *just works(TM)*.) Cheers -- Marcin Borkowski (http://mbork.pl)