3 ms·
I recognise his area, but he's pretty general in his commentary "Don't use it to write (anywhere), it's just for typesetting", so I feel justified in using my s
by wyattpeak 8y ago
I recognise his area, but he's pretty general in his commentary "Don't use it to write (anywhere), it's just for typesetting", so I feel justified in using my similarly limited domain to critique.
But I don't know how you expect me to write a chemistry paper without writing the equations? Just leave them blank? Typesetting is instrumental to simply composing the paper, it's not something I can do after. As I said in my initial comment, nothing else will actually do the task as fast as Latex, so it'd be pretty perverse to type in something else. Maybe it works for your domain, but not mine.
- exergy 8y agoI am a Mechanical Engineering PhD student, with a whole lot of equation writing to do myself. And as someone who has very briefly dabbled with latex, I have found MathType to be the better solution for myself. I just cannot get myself to type out latex equation flawlessly first time, and MS Word's equation editor is an abomination. MathType has a rather large list of shortcuts requiring memorising (made more difficult by my dvorak layout), but once learnt, equation writing proceeds at an enjoyable clip. It has the secondary benefit for resulting in WYSIWYG, to match with the rest of my MS Word workflow.
- wyattpeak 8y agoMathType looks decent for maths (and I assume engineering). I can see the appeal of the WYSIWYG, though I don't really see how learning a bunch of shortcuts is materially different from learning the Latex commands. Nevertheless, it still doesn't have a bunch of the symbols I need, which was my point about smaller domains. I'm glad it works for you, but given the advantage seems to me marginal and it offers no options for extensibility, I'm still unconvinced that we're at or even close to a stage where Latex has no place in writing documents.