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

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

\title{My Title}
\author{My Name}

\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

Reply to: