Re: sharing a bibliography
On 12/23/05, Joe Mc Cool <joe@benburb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 04:15:31AM -0700, Daniel Webb wrote:
> > Especially if you typeset mathematics, Latex makes Word and Openoffice look
> > like toys, and we're talking about a program the basis of which has been
>
> Yes, agreed. But are they catching up ? I am sometimes worried that
> I am investing a lot of time in something that just _might_ be
> superceeded in a few years time ?
I wouldn't worry about LaTeX going anywhere in the near future.
Anytime you need a strong notion of sectioning or any sort of
formatting precision, a structured typesetting program like LaTeX will
win hands-down over a WYSIWYG word processor. Just look at the way
most people format their Word/OOo documents: They take an existing
document with all of the formatting that they want, and start
replacing the actual text. This can carry along a huge amount of
garbage, and leaves them with a substantial task if they need to
create something without an existing template.
For me, it's as simple as
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{times}
\title{My Title}
\author{My Name}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\section{}, \subsection{}, \paragraph{}, \begin{itemize}, etc. as needed.
Numbering is always consistent, bibtex handles references almost
transparently, cross-referencing within a document is simple, and I
can throw in a \tableofcontents,
\listoffigures, or \listoftables if (and where) I need one.
--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
Reply to: