Re: The inners of Lout

[Oliver Bandel]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, DervishD wrote:

>     Hello Jeff :))
> 
>     This may be a 'strange' post, but the last messages of this list
> have made me think about the inner workings of Lout. And please,
> excuse my poor english, but I just use it for programming ;))
> 
>     I've read about Lout not doing well with tables (just an example,
> I don't remember clearly the issue), having problems with some
> things, etc... I've used Lout for a while (less than a year, anyway)
> and it always seemed quite good and stable for me, but I only use it
> for writing letters and reports. So my question is this: what are the
> known problems with Lout (that is, things that will render bad, like
> the diagrams in some situations) if I don't use any include file
> (that is, I only use it's primitives and operators, never include a
> package)? What things should I expect to render bad or far from
> perfect?

For enhancing Lout: If the order of inclusion of the packages
would be no problem, that would be fine.
I read in the documentation to lout, that including package
should be done in a special order....

...if lout would automatically use the right order, or better,
includes automatically the right needed files, this would help
a lot.
Maybe there is a way to do this... (or as a default, which vcan be changed
by the user for special tasks).


> 
>     I'm currently proposing to my enterprise a change from TeX and
> Adobe Framemaker to Lout, being it easier and more powerful to my
> opinion,

Both systems has their advantages. But if you are using plain-TeX
you better should try LaTeX or ConTeXt. LaTeX/ConTeXt are quite
high-level. Both systems are using TeX as it's core, but preventing
the user from using low-level plain-TeX (at least most of the time).


> but I cannot present it as a document preparation system
> with lots of packages that do the real job or it won't get even
> considered :((( (closed minds in the enterprise...). I must present
> it as a document preparation system with a little set of operators
> that must be learnt but as powerful as TeX.
> 
>     It will probably used (if selected) for being automatically used,
> e.g. taking a bunch of text and some comments in the adjacent column
> (this will be solved with the || operator), centering some text in
> the page, making watermarks, etc... We currently use pure PostScript
> for this, and TeX for doing manual letters, plus Framemaker for some
> layouts (that could be done with TeX, but we aren't TeX gurus,
> certainly ;)))). Using Lout will solve that, since it could be used
> for *all* three tasks.


IMHO the typographic quality of TeX is better.
But I see the same advantages of lout: very easy for
creating macro-layouts. That's possible in LaTeX too;
you maybe can ask the TeX-Gurus of the (german) Mailinglist.
But I think ConTeXt maybe could be a good tool here.

I used postsctript fore some tasks more and more often...


> 
>     Knowing this: must I expect some strange behaviour and bad
> renderings if just using the primitives and not the packages? Will
> that bad renderings avoided by other DPS (as TeX) (e.g. I know that
> the line breaking algorithm for Lout is almost the same as for TeX,
> so I know that TeX won't break lines 'better' than Lout)?.

But TeX's typesetting of the words itself is better, because
out only distinguishs the objects at word-boundaries, where
TeX/LaTeX/ConTeXt/... (the TeX-family) distinguishes between
individual characters/letters.

But if your main goal is to have automated, well broken lines, you
could use boith systems (but this should be possible in Postscript
directly!). If you need very good typography at any level, you have
to use programs of the TeX-family.
If you want easily handle with Postscript-features for macro-layouting,
(scale/translate/coloring) than lout seems to be the best.
(But ConTeXt seems to be in the middle of both poles.)


> 
>     Thanks for all, and please excuse the length of this letter, but
> I am very interested in making Lout the document preparation system
> in the enterprise I work for, since I'm trying to do it from one year
> ago ;)


I'm interested in using the right tool for the tasks, I have...
if lout is good fot it, I will use lout; if TeX is good for
that, I will use TeX; and if I have to use PostScript directly,
for solving the problems, I will do that.

So, my interest is a littlebid different here... ;)

Maybe special tasks needs special programs or a lot of
handwork in writing PostScipt-procedures...


Ciao,
   Oliver

P.S.: Yes, I was very happy about Lout as I first looked at it.
      But my hype was gone... I see the advantages of lout, but
      it does not provide all things I need. But nevertheless,
      it's powerful.