[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

a negative comment about Lout in comp.text FAQ list.

Subject: a negative comment about Lout in comp.text FAQ list.
Date: 07 Oct 94 11:00:52 -0100

Hello all louters.

There is a quite negative comment on Lout in comp.text newsgroup's FAQ
(frequently asked questions) list (updated by Chris Lewis). It does
talk about Lout (probably v2) in those terms.

FAQ> -------------------------------
FAQ> Subject: GN10. What is Lout?
FAQ> Lout is a new batch formatter drawing a fair bit from TeX and troff.
FAQ> Its main strengths are a more powerful and much easier to use "macro"
FAQ> programming language, and is reputed to be as "complete" as TeX or
FAQ> the troff formatting suite.  It only generates PostScript.
FAQ> Lout was written by Jeff Kingston (address@hidden) and
FAQ> is available via anon FTP from ftp.cs.su.oz.au directory "jeff".
FAQ> A user of lout comments:
FAQ>         I had a look at lout, but was unimpressed.  While, in
FAQ>         principle, someone could write macros to give it the
FAQ>         functionality of troff + mm, at present the macros are rather
FAQ>         rudimentary.  They also are so simple that the text produced
FAQ>         does not look professional.  I had some discussion with the
FAQ>         author about this, and got back a "What's wrong with you,
FAQ>         nobody _else_ has complained" reply that suggests not much
FAQ>         progress is to be expected there.

Perhaps we could politely send an email to the comp.text FAQ
maintainer Chris Lewis: address@hidden (Text FAQ
commentary reception)

Please don't flame him personnaly. His is quoting an anonymous user
opinion. What I did is sending a polite email explaining that i
disagree in part, and that Lout v3 is usable. If he gets severl
positive opinions about Lout he might add some of them in the FAQ.

And although i am a Lout user, I do agree with the comment about 'text
produced does not look professional' and about 'rudimentary macros'.
I think that LaTeX produced documents are better looking.  But i still
only use Lout (i will use LaTeX when i'll be asked to, eg for a
journal paper accepting LaTeX files).

And finally, i do expect some progresses to be done in Lout. (actually
i believe that some complaints by one user are worthwhile to be
followed; quality is not democracy; i mean that lout progresses should
not be done by popupar pressure, but by a search of quality; this
applies to any software!).


Basile STARYNKEVITCH   ----  Commissariat a l Energie Atomique
DRN/DMT/SERMA * C.E. Saclay bat.470 * 91191 GIF/YVETTE CEDEX * France
fax: (33) 1-;    phone: (33) 1-
email: address@hidden;  homephone: (33) 1-

N.B. Any opinions expressed here are solely mine, and not of my organization.
N.B. Les opinions exprimees ici me sont personnelles et n engagent pas le CEA.

Please cite a small part of my mail in all answers
Veuillez citer une petite partie de mon courrier dans vos reponses

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]