Re: The inners of Lout

[DervishD]

    Hi Oliver :)

    Thanks a lot for your answer and advice. I has been useful :)

>>     I'm currently proposing to my enterprise a change from TeX and
>> Adobe Framemaker to Lout, being it easier and more powerful to my
>> opinion,
>Both systems has their advantages. But if you are using plain-TeX
>you better should try LaTeX or ConTeXt.

    Not possible by now. The TeX gurus says 'no' to LaTeX and the
like. They prefer plain TeX (and I do too, even I don't use TeX ;)))
It has to do with low level control or something like that.

>IMHO the typographic quality of TeX is better.

    Here at work the Computer-Modern fonts are more familiar, but
Lout does a great job too ;)

>If you need very good typography at any level, you have
>to use programs of the TeX-family.

    Here at work the TeX group uses a homemade TeX from the Knuth
sources (at least that is what I have heard), under Solaris and
Linux.

>P.S.: Yes, I was very happy about Lout as I first looked at it.
>      But my hype was gone... I see the advantages of lout, but
>      it does not provide all things I need. But nevertheless,
>      it's powerful.

    I prefer Lout mainly because three reasons: I can read the source
code and understand most of it, I have access to a free manual and
it's GPL'd. I can build Lout in every Unix I have access, but I don't
know even where locate the TeX sources (my fault entirely O:) ).

    Truly, thanks for your advice :)

    Raúl