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

Re: vim + LaTeX (Was: What am I missing without mutt?)

s. keeling said...
> marc <gmane@auxbuss.com>:
> >  Micha said...
> > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:11:32 -0000
> > > > The reason I asked is that I write books yet haven't found anything to 
> > > > match WinEdt, which is a Windows editor, for handling chapters and LaTeX 
> > > 
> > > Personally I work with either lyx or emacs + auctex, but you may want to have
> > > a look at texmaker which is much more similar to winedt (and it has both linux
> > 
> >  Thanks for the texmaker pointer. I had a look at it, but unfortunately - 
> >  as did/does kile - it doesn't do realtime spell checking, and you can't 
> >  add words to the dictionary; as a writing tool, those are serious 
> Perhaps this is unfair, sorry, but if you're a serious writer, you
> should not be relying on "realtime spell checking" tools. They're not
> up to it.  You need to learn to proof-read.  Expend a little effort
> and time at it, and you'll end up with a far more satisfying result
> than those dumb children can offer you.

Flame bait? Or troll?

Who said I'm "relying on" it? Oh, you did. It's a tool, so I lean on it 
- as in propped up by. If you knew diddly-squat about "serious 
writing" - I don't, it just pays the bills, and makes me feel like I've 
contributed a zit to the face of humanity[1] when I see my books on 
Amazon or magazine articles on the newsagents' shelves - then you'd use 
the tools appropriate to your trade too. You probably do.

Most spellcheckers are pretty good, providing they allow you to add 
words to them. And, I'll wager you've not experienced the spellchecker 
in WinEdt, which has a rather complex dictionary manager that has 
seemingly endless features and boundless configurations options. Do I 
rely on it? No. Do I lean on it? You betcha.

As to proof reading: I edit for a publisher.

I'll put your final sentence down to the meandering ramblings of a 
patronising numbskull. Twit.


[1] So that other can squeeze it, I guess.

Reply to: