5 ms·

One of the key aspects about LaTeX that made me very productive with it was that I could just dump lots and lots of text pretty much directly from my brain into

One of the key aspects about LaTeX that made me very productive with it was that I could just dump lots and lots of text pretty much directly from my brain into the plaintext editor, without thinking much about the intricate details of the layout. I suspect that an important "feature" that enabled this was the fact that I didn't have the exact layout present and visible in front of me all the time, but just the semantic aspects of it - until I manually triggered a compilation to actually get everything laid out. However, this is still an awesome editor, and I would probably have loved to use the near-instant WYSIWYG updates for more complex and layout-sensitive parts of papers, like tables and such. I'd just wish this editor would allow to disable the distracting layout rendering completely for "dump-text-from-brain" phases.

PeterStuer 7y ago
For me it was the reverse. Layout and content always went hand in hand, with both engaging and influencing each other. I have noticed these different approaches, text as 'data' irrespective of presentation and text as an element part of a holistic piece of work, to be strongly preferred by different people and either of them struggling to be productive when mismatched.
- Toenex 7y ago
  This is a good observation. Interestingly, I'm quite a visual writer in that the final form of the piece influences my writing. However, I still prefer the latex workflow of entering the text in a raw form coupled with regular compilation into the final layout. Perhaps as a developer of just feels more like coding to isolate and iterate.
  - usrusr 7y ago
    I think that this is because the source form is visual as well and an author in the process of writing has completely different formatting needs than a reader.
  - andrepd 7y ago
    Exactly. My writing process is always sort of "two-phased". First get the content right, use semantic commands (section, theorem, keyword, algorithm listing, etc). For this the LaTeX plaintext is great, I define macros for everything that I'm going to use more than a couple of times that has a semantic meaning. Then, the second phase is adjusting the layout/typography to convey my meaning in the best way possible.
- jonhohle 7y ago
  I’m currently working on a project where I’m using Pandoc which allows me to write and outline in Markdown with embedded LaTeX when necessary. When I have a new “style” I want to apply - indexable category, figures and summary information, etc. - I create a new macro and use that inline. My particular project has a lot of repeating elements, imagine a review of all Chevrolet’s, so one section has a significant number of pages that follow a similar structure - a table of common details, an image, a review. So far, it’s working for me. Along with GNU make, Inkscape (for turning SVG to PDF), I’ve been happy with what I have with minimal embedded layout.
  - stephenll 7y ago
    This sounds great. Do you have an example or blog post? Very interested in seeing the macro part and everything pulled together.
mFixman 7y ago
I agree. Brain-dumping `\begin{float}[t]` while writing seems more natural than thinking "go to this menu, click this option, see if it inserted the float, and choose 'top' in its location properties dialog".

PeterStuer 7y ago

For me it was the reverse. Layout and content always went hand in hand, with both engaging and influencing each other. I have noticed these different approaches, text as 'data' irrespective of presentation and text as an element part of a holistic piece of work, to be strongly preferred by different people and either of them struggling to be productive when mismatched.

Toenex 7y ago
This is a good observation. Interestingly, I'm quite a visual writer in that the final form of the piece influences my writing. However, I still prefer the latex workflow of entering the text in a raw form coupled with regular compilation into the final layout. Perhaps as a developer of just feels more like coding to isolate and iterate.
- usrusr 7y ago
  I think that this is because the source form is visual as well and an author in the process of writing has completely different formatting needs than a reader.
- andrepd 7y ago
  Exactly. My writing process is always sort of "two-phased". First get the content right, use semantic commands (section, theorem, keyword, algorithm listing, etc). For this the LaTeX plaintext is great, I define macros for everything that I'm going to use more than a couple of times that has a semantic meaning. Then, the second phase is adjusting the layout/typography to convey my meaning in the best way possible.
jonhohle 7y ago
I’m currently working on a project where I’m using Pandoc which allows me to write and outline in Markdown with embedded LaTeX when necessary. When I have a new “style” I want to apply - indexable category, figures and summary information, etc. - I create a new macro and use that inline. My particular project has a lot of repeating elements, imagine a review of all Chevrolet’s, so one section has a significant number of pages that follow a similar structure - a table of common details, an image, a review. So far, it’s working for me. Along with GNU make, Inkscape (for turning SVG to PDF), I’ve been happy with what I have with minimal embedded layout.
- stephenll 7y ago
  This sounds great. Do you have an example or blog post? Very interested in seeing the macro part and everything pulled together.

mFixman 7y ago

I agree. Brain-dumping `\begin{float}[t]` while writing seems more natural than thinking "go to this menu, click this option, see if it inserted the float, and choose 'top' in its location properties dialog".