[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.
From: |
Basile STARYNKEVITCH |
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>
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>
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>
FAQ> A user of lout comments:
FAQ>
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- 69.08.23.81; phone: (33) 1- 69.08.40.66
email: address@hidden; homephone: (33) 1- 46.65.45.53
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
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- a negative comment about Lout in comp.text FAQ list.,
Basile STARYNKEVITCH <=