How much math-typesetting smarts should Mma include?
- To: mathgroup at yoda.physics.unc.edu
- Subject: How much math-typesetting smarts should Mma include?
- From: HenningLeidecker <me at leidecker.gsfc.nasa.gov>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 09:26:43 -0500
Dr. Wiscombe's thoughtful remarks ("What should Mma be?") nicely sum
up a strong feeling of mine. I too believe that WRI's resources
would be far better spent on strengthening the *mathematical* side of
Mma, rather than in attempts to strengthen the typographic side.
TeX gives us some idea of what it takes to get publication-quality
math typography. TeX is neither small (400 to 600 Kbytes is common
for the tex-binary, and the printer-driver and font-files are
extra.), nor quick to learn. It took Knuth and associates several
years to bring it to the point where many other could use it for
production-typesetting. And smaller systems are (IMHO) shabby.
Mma does not include its own FORTRAN (or C) compiler, nor a
RenderMan-like (or KHOROS-like) 3D-visualizer. It has hooks to such
Apps, and that is a proper division of labor. I propose that Mma not
develop its own industrial-strength math-smart typographic system,
but provide hooks to existing ones.
Prev by Date:
Next by Date:
Re: What should Mma be?
Previous by thread:
Next by thread:
Optimisation mit constraint