That's definitely not the case in computer science and electrical engineering at least. LaTeX definitely isn't great, but I don't see a viable alternative.
There's always InDesign, but given its time to proficiency, I think the bast case for similar purposes might still be something creating LaTeX/DocBooks source that ports well to InDesign.
In my current experience with states-side academia: draw a line between the most math/theoretical departments through physics and end up at the engineering departments. The tendency to use TeX/LaTeX follows that line from a relatively high probability to zero on arrival to engineering. In European academia it stays reasonable high throughout.
I honestly miss LaTeX a lot, especially the quality of documents I could create with it (when I was in academia). Hopefully I'll get a chance to do a white paper later this year and bust out the skills.
But I am totally willing to accept my role as an outlier... I even wrote a small TeX package at one point, so I'm aware it's not a "fun" system. :P
I think it's not perfect, but for many academic purposes, LaTeX is still the best tool in my opinion. It's definitely not perfect, but there's a lot of historical weight and quirks, but the results look great if a little effort is spent. :)
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. Most of the academics I know hate it. They use it because certain journals require it, or their advisor makes them use it.
I use TeX. LaTeX also works, but the books are longer and less well written than Knuth's original TeXBook! :-)!
I love TeX -- it's one of my favorite and most important tools.
I have a Ph.D. in applied math, and IMHO TeX (or LaTeX) is just essential, call that more than ESSENTIAL for my work.
E.g., now I'm a "solo founder" of a startup, a Web site. The crucial core of the work is some original applied math I derived. So, yup, i typed it into TeX. So, as I wrote the corresponding software, I referred back to the TeX output of my core math -- worked great!
Without the math, the software would be impossible; one would just look at the screen and wonder what the heck to type. With the math, the software was just routine, essentially just trivial.
For typing material with a lot of math, I see no reasonable alternative to TeX or LaTeX.
I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation with word processing (thankfully!) but without TeX. What a pain. I could have included more math in the dissertation if I'd had TeX to do the word whacking. More generally, at one point in my career, I could easily have written and published a lot of original and tutorial applied math but didn't because of the difficulty of the math word whacking before TeX.
The last paper I published, some a bit wild mathematical statistics, was a good test for TeX -- some of my mathematical expressions in subscripts were a bit much, but TeX worked flawlessly!
If anyone is typing a lot of mathematical material and objects to TeX, then just encourage them to do the typing without TeX and see if they like that world better!
Computing is changing the world in major ways, some just astounding and/or astoundingly good; math is helping, a lot now and will more in the future; and TeX is just crucial for getting the math word whacking done. But Knuth knew that and did a great job.
So far, for the near and distant future of computing, TeX is one of the stronger pillars of civilization.
If it doesn't compromise your work, can you speak more of the path you took from a Ph.D. to startups/tech, and how your research allowed you to go down that path?
I'm a Ph.D. student in applied math as well, currently.
I tried a grad math department and didn't
like it: (1) In a course in real
analysis, early on the prof discussed some
set theory. The summer before I'd had an
NSF thing in axiomatic set theory, Suppes,
von Neumann, an appendix in Kelley, etc.
His first test had a problem, and at the
last minute I saw a solution and wrote it
down. He called me on the carpet -- nasty
guy. I apologized for using little omega
for its usual meaning without defining it,
and then he saw that my solution was
better than his and I was off the
carpet. Bummer. He was too quick to
cut me off at the knees. (2) Course was
in Kelley, General Topology. As a ugrad
senior, I'd lectured a prof once a week
and covered all of it except the last
chapter on compactness when I cut out to
finish my honors paper [The typing was so
hard that from rolling the carriage a half
step my left arm hurt for a year!] But the
course in grad school, same book, was
beneath me. I turned in a stack of solved
exercises and was a nice guy -- I didn't
submit any I'd done in ugrad. Waste of
time. (3) There was an abstract algebra
course from Herstein's book -- by then
nearly all beneath me. E.g., my ugrad
honors paper had been on group
representation theory which is heavy
linear algebra and abstract algebra stuff.
I solved some exercise in ring theory and
got sent to a full prof. The only thing
new in the course for me was Galois
theory, so I studied that some weekend and
took an oral exam for the course. Waste
of time.
I wanted the math for math-physics but
didn't see how to get that there.
Certainly not Galois theory. There were
some good ways but not with the courses
they put me in. The specs for the q-exams
were a disaster -- the faculty committee
had a political train wreck. Bummer.
I got recruited by the NBS&T in DC.
Getting to DC then was the land of milk
and honey for applied math. I got
married, and she went for her Ph.D.
We had a great time, good French cheese,
some quite good French wine, lots of
plays, concerts, trips to Shenandoah, etc.
I got into descriptive statistics,
multi-variate statistics, statistical
hypothesis testing, numerical linear
algebra, curve fitting, the fast Fourier
transform, second order stationary
stochastic processes, extrapolation, and
power spectral estimation, optimization,
the Navier-Stokes equations, did a lot of
catch up reading in the basics, a lot more
in linear algebra, multi-variate calculus,
e.g., exterior algebra, and more. Kept
busy. Had a great time. Also got into
computing in a fairly big way. Got some
nice items, e.g., two new cars, etc.
My favorite book on my bookshelf,
including for applied math, is J. Neveu,
Mathematical Foundations of the Calculus
of Probability.
Worked in industry and saw some problems
in combinatorial optimization,
deterministic optimal control, and
stochastic optimal control, identified a
problem in stochastic optimal control and
found an intuitive solution, applied to
grad school in applied math. Got into
Cornell, Brown, Princeton, and more.
Independently in my first summer did the
research for my dissertation in stochastic
optimal control. Had lots of delays
having to do with my wife and, then, our
budgeting. In a rush, wrote some
corresponding software in two months, much
of it over Xmas at wife's family farm, and
wrote and typed in the final dissertation
in six weeks, stood for orals, and got my
Ph.D.
During Ph.D., did work in military systems
analysis, some optimization, statistics,
and Monte Carlo -- wrote the corresponding
software.
The day my wife got her Ph.D. she was in a
clinical depression from the stress. To
help her get better, I took a job I didn't
want as a B-school prof in applied math
(also played a leadership role in campus
computing and did some consulting) but was
near her home family farm that I hoped
would help her. It didn't. I took a job
in AI at IBM's Watson lab and did some
optimization, mathematical statistics, and
AI. My wife never recovered ...
My software now is 100,000 lines of typing
with about 25,000 programming language
statements and the rest voluminous
comments. About 80,000 of the 100,000 are
for on-line, and the rest are for
off-line, occasional batch runs for some
of the data manipulations. There is some
light usage of SQL Server.
I am basing on Windows and the .NET
Framework. For the Web site, that is
Microsoft's IIS (Internet Information
Server -- handles the TCP/IP Web site
communications and much more leaving a
nice environment for my code for the
actual Web pages) and ASP.NET for the Web
page controls (single line text boxes,
links, check boxes, radio buttons, etc.).
My Web pages and my code for the pages is
just dirt simple -- Microsoft writes a
little JavaScript for me, and I have yet
to write a single line of it. There's no
use of Ajax, no pull downs, pop ups, roll
overs, overlays, icons, etc. The Web site
is also dirt simple, a seven year old who
knows no English and has only a cheap
smart phone dirt simple.
I wrote a little C code; am using some
open source C code, and otherwise wrote
all the code in Visual Basic .NET -- seems
fine to me. The important stuff is the
math I derived; given the math, the code
is routine, and Visual Basic .NET is well
up to the work. Since I don't like C
syntax, I don't like the syntax of C#.
Maybe someday I will convert to C#, but in
an important sense Visual Basic .NET to C#
is just converting to a different flavor
of syntactic sugar -- indeed, IIRC there
is a translator.
So, I'm an entrepreneur working to sell
the results of some math I derived.
So, to do such a thing, think of a problem
and a solution, write the code, sell the
results. Of course, problem selection is
a biggie. And want a problem that can
solve and with own applied math with a
better solution than available otherwise;
want the software not too much to write;
want the computing resources within what
is reasonable now or soon (possibly
considering the cloud); want the results
to be a must have instead of just a
nice to have for enough users/customers
times money per each to make some big
bucks.
If you are a solo founder, then you get to
avoid a common cause of failure -- founder
disputes. As a founder, you SHOULD
understand all the work, so if you are a
solo founder you will!
Don't expect any equity funders to write
you a check until you have revenue
significant and growing rapidly. Thus, as
a solo founder with revenue significant
and growing rapidly you won't accept their
check. No one in equity funding has yet
seen even 10 cents from applied math
research; you won't get back even laughs.
Ph.D. academics is really good at work
that is "new, correct, and significant".
Business just HATES anything really new or
significant and has no idea how to check
"correct". E.g., the information
technology VCs keep looking for
simplistic, empirical patterns and have no
idea how to evaluate anything new.
Really, their looking for such patterns is
likely also just a publicity scam;
instead, they want to invest money in a
business where accountants working for
their limited partners, who, if that is
possible, know even less about math, can
say that they made a good investment. In
an analogy, they want to buy a ticket on a
plane that has already reached nice
altitude and is climbing quickly. Maybe
the startup will take their money if there
are five founders, all exhausted, all with
all credit cards maxed out, and each with
a pregnant wife.
For a good applied mathematician -- with some
original, powerful, valuable work, good at
software, with a business with significant
revenue growing rapidly -- to report to a BoD
of business people, essentially anyone
else in business, is a bummer. E.g., at
an early BoD meeting you will outline an
applied math project for some nice
progress in the business, and about the
time you get to sufficient statistics, an
ergodic assumption, completeness of
Hilbert space, the polar decomposition,
...
Thank you so very much, graycat. Incredibly helpful, and I appreciate the time you put into the discussion. I feel as if I need to read your post 3-4 times to absorb it all.
I am working in numerical methods for PDE so some of this was far afield but it does make sense that those are the areas ripe for opportunity.
I work in scientific instrumentation, on the product development side. I've never seen LaTeX output (unless it's been well concealed) in a report or paper.
What I'm seeing is that the use of typesetting and even its cousin, word processing, are generally going downhill. My employer has largely given up on print advertising. If we write papers, they're for the more commercial oriented journals or trade mags, that don't use TeX for their own typesetting.
More and more, I see stuff that's just written in the e-mail editor, with graphics copy-pasta'd from screen captures, or directly into web based services such as Office 365. Or, PowerPoint (with all of the pitfalls described by Edward Tufte).
Word processing has practically been relegated to documents that nobody reads, such as functional procedures and announcements from HR.
I realize this all sounds kind of cynical, but I hope is taken in good humor. However, the gist is that writing and correspondence are becoming increasingly informal.
I use it when I need to write some documents (user guides etc...). If the alternative is open office or some other "WYSIWYG" editor I'll take LaTeX any time.
I don't really love it though, I find myself using org-mode more and more for that purpose, then I let emacs generate the latex code for my doc. It's not nearly as flexible but it works well and your source is a lot more readable.
I also use LaTeX for my resume, if you find a good theme they end up looking pretty sharp and professional with little work.
I do EECS research in the aerospace industry. Every journal we ever submit to either requires or accepts Latex. I also used it regularly to write reports as an undergrad. At least in the EECS side of the engineering field, Latex is alive and well.
Yes. I just wrote a guidebook with it. It's not that great if you want to do a full-color glossy thing, but the results are way better than using something like Word.
I'm finishing up a 350+ page family history book that I wrote in LaTeX; I've got two or three more to go, and I wouldn't consider using anything else. It's got its quirks, but it was so easy to work with page formatting, footnotes/endnotes, and sections that it made up for all the fiddly issues I ran into with images. I have also been using the genealogytree[0] package (which relies on TikZ, coincidentally used by OP) to draw diagrams programatically. In addition to satisfying my scripting itch, it looks beautiful despite my unlearned eye for graphic design.
Related: I wrote a resume in LaTeX a few years ago. After an in-person interview, the manager took me to meet the team: When we walked in, they were crowded around a monitor arguing about figure out how I'd made such a cool-looking CV. It probably didn't actually look all that good, but anything that isn't Word stands out nowadays.
In my experience there's a lot of layout that's been done in Illustrator. I suspect it's because of how long Illustrator's been around and had pretty good layout support, especially when compared with the early years of Aldus PageMaker and QuarkXPress and other tools. Illustrator was needed to do a lot of graphics work that these other tools didn't support, so it can make sense to do as much as you can in a single tool. If you can get good results doing everything you need in terms of text handling in Illustrator, why take the time to use a DTP application when you're likely going to need to use Illustrator anyway for graphics work.
For longer documents in TeX, I wrote a collection of TeX macros for to make cross referencing easy. The collection was a little tricky to write but is fairly easy to use and works great. The package is based on some logical names that serve as, say, pointers; then in one place define such a name and in other places refer to it and get the page number, etc. inserted where the reference is made. Given some simple examples, it's really easy to use. I have a simple macro for my favorite text editor that will create a new, the next according to one scheme, such logical name. Having an easy way to have cross references is nice.
I also have something similar but simpler for bibliographic references.
TeX, some TeX macros, a good text editor with a good macro language (e.g., KEdit), and a good spell checker (e.g., ASpell with the last TeX distribution I got) are super good writing tools to have.
They work nicely for me. I haven't looked at the code in years, so there may be some dependencies, likely minor, maybe just in documentation, on some of my other macros.
There may be some subtle bugs, but I haven't found any. If you find a bug and know just what usage encounters the bug, then don't do that usage again! Or fix the bug!
There is enough documentation so that you can see the ideas -- actually they are all quite simple. The macros were a good TeX exercise.
% XREF001.TEX --
%
% Created at 02:29:35 on Thursday, April 13th, 2006.
% ======================================================================
%
% Modified at 01:03:52 on Thursday, April 13th, 2006.
%
% Macros for sequential numbering and cross-references
%
% Macros \SNUAdvanceChapter, \SNU#1, \SNT#1, \SNF#1,
% \GetSN, \SNC#1, \SNCGetChapter#1, \SNCGetPage#1,
% \SNUGetChapter#1, \SNUGetUnit#1, \SNUGetPage#1,
% \SNTGetTable#1, \SNTGetPage#1, \SNFGetFigure#1,
% \SNFGetPage#1, \SNChapterPrefix
%
% Counters \SNChapter, \SNUnit, \SNTable, \SNFigure,
%
% Here SN abbreviates 'sequential numbering'.
%
% Here we have a start on a fairly general collection of
% macros for sequential numbering and cross-referencing.
%
% For example, maybe in some chapter, that at present is
% chapter 3, we want to sequentially number definitions,
% theorems, remarks, and examples -- call them all 'units'
% -- as in:
%
% 3.1 Definition:
%
% 3.2 Theorem:
%
% 3.3 Definition:
%
% 3.4 Remark:
%
% 3.5 Example:
%
% Then with this package we would select some tags, say,
% starting with SNTag, and type
%
% \SNU{\SNTagA} Definition:
%
% \SNU{\SNTagB} Theorem:
%
% \SNU{\SNTagC} Definition:
%
% \SNU{\SNTagD} Remark:
%
% \SNU{\SNTagE} Example:
%
% So, macro \SNU abbreviates 'sequential numbering with
% units'. So, with macro \SNU we get a case of automatic
% sequential numbering.
%
% Suppose 3.1 Definition: appeared on page 43. Then
% elsewhere we could write
%
% See \SNUGetChapter\SNTagA.\SNUGetUnit\SNTagA Theorem
% on page \SNUGetPage\SNTagA.
%
% and get
%
% See 3.1 Theorem on page 43.
%
% So, we get automatic cross-referencing.
%
% Of course, to do cross-referencing in such a general way,
% need to run TeX at least twice, once to find, for each
% sequentially numbered 'unit', its page and write this
% data to a file, and once to read this file and insert the
% sequential numbering and page numbers where desired in
% cross-references.
%
% The file is \jobname.XRF.
%
% To use this sequential numbering with units,
%
% o At each chapter, after the \eject, if there is
% one, and just before the \hOne, have
%
% \SNUAdvanceChapter
%
% to increment by one the counter \SNChapter and
% set the counter \SNUnit to 0.
%
% o Otherwise use macros
%
% \SNU\SNTagA
% \SNUGetChapter\SNTagA
% \SNUGetUnit\SNTagA
% \SNUGetPage\SNTagA
%
% as illustrated.
%
% o Then run TeX at least twice, basically until
% the file \jobname.XRF quits changing.
%
% So, we get sequential numbering and cross-referencing with
% 'units'. The macros and counters particular to 'units'
% all begin with \SNU.
%
% We let
%
% \newcount\SNUnit
%
% keep track of the number of the unit. So, when we use
%
% \def\SNUAdvanceChapter{\advance\SNChapter by1
% \SNUnit=0}
%
% to increment
%
% \newcount\SNChapter
%
% we also set \SNUnit=0 for the new chapter.
%
% With the \SNU macros as illu...
\newread\XREFileIn
% \message{\string\XREFileIn = \the\XREFileIn}
\newwrite\XREFileOut
%
\newcount\SNChapter
\newcount\SNUnit
\newcount\SNTable
\newcount\SNFigure
%
\SNChapter=0
\SNTable=0
\SNFigure=0
%
\def\SNChapterPrefix{}
%
\def\TrimTag#1 {#1} % For trimming trailing blanks.
\def\First#1 #2 #3 {#1} % Parsing first token.
\def\Second#1 #2 #3 {#2} % " second "
\def\Third#1 #2 #3 {#3} % " third "
\def\SNUNone{CH UN PG} % Value for tags before there is an XRF file.
\def\SNTNone{TB JUNK PG} % Value for tags before there is an XRF file.
\def\SNFNone{FG JUNK PG} % Value for tags before there is an XRF file.
\def\SNPNone{PT JUNK PG} % Value for tags before there is an XRF file.
%
\def\SNUAdvanceChapter{\advance\SNChapter by1
\SNUnit=0}
%
% Define a 'chapter' tag:
%
% Need a \global on \advance because might have the \SNC from
% within a group, e.g., {\bf \SNC ...}.
%
\def\SNC#1{{\global\SNUnit=0
\write\XREFileOut{\string#1}%
\def\JUNKA{\SNChapterPrefix\the\SNChapter\space JUNK}%
{\edef\JUNKB{\write\XREFileOut{\JUNKA}}\JUNKB}%
\write\XREFileOut{\the\count0}}}%
%
% Define a 'unit' tag:
%
% To be more sure page number is correct, add text to list
% BEFORE writing page number to XRF file. In principle could
% do the same for \SNT and \SNF but from how these are used in
% practice a page number error would be nearly impossible.
%
\def\SNU#1{{\global\advance\SNUnit by1
\write\XREFileOut{\string#1}%
\SNChapterPrefix\the\SNChapter.\the\SNUnit
\def\JUNKA{\SNChapterPrefix\the\SNChapter\space\the\SNUnit}%
{\edef\JUNKB{\write\XREFileOut{\JUNKA}}\JUNKB}%
\write\XREFileOut{\the\count0}}}%
%
% BEGIN Modified at 04:16:31 on Tuesday, December 29th, 2015.
%
% In this collection, we now have a new
% macro
%
% \SNP -- Sequentially Number Pointer
%
% This macro intended for cross
% referencing to a place in text, that
% is not specifically to a 'unit'
% (definition, theorem), table, or
% figure.
%
% In short, can have
%
% Note\SNP{\SNTagCU}
% that, for $a, b \in R$ and
%
% which will define tag \SNTagCU but
% insert nothing into the document.
%
% Then elsewhere can have
%
% Since as on page
% \SNCGetPage{\SNTagCU}
% an inner product is bilinear,
%
% which will insert into the document
% the page number of the page where the
% macro \SNTagCU was defined. Many
% more details below:
%
% The macro \SNP is part of this
% package of cross referencing and
% sequential numbering but does not
% actually 'number' or 'sequentially
% number' anything. We start the name
% of \SNP with 'SN' just to regard
% macro names of the form SNx as
% 'reserved' in own TeX usage.
%
% Then elsewhere in the document, can
% refer to that place by its page
% number, chapter number (apparently
% with its chapter prefix), etc.
%
% E.g., if give a little discussion of,
% say, bilinear, can type, say,
%
% Note\SNP{\SNTagCU}
% that, for $a, b \in R$ and
%
% and that will just 'define' tag
% SNTagCU. Of course the tag SNTagCU
% was likely from running own KEdit
% macro isntag to find the new tag name
% SNTagCU and insert it in the argument
% of the macro \SPP. That is, in KEdit
% w...
\def\SNP#1{{\write\XREFileOut{\string#1}%
\def\JUNKA{\SNChapterPrefix\the\SNChapter\space\the\SNUnit}%
{\edef\JUNKB{\write\XREFileOut{\JUNKA}}\JUNKB}%
\write\XREFileOut{\the\count0}}}%
%
% END Modified at 04:16:31 on Tuesday, December 29th, 2015.
%
% Define a table tag:
%
\def\SNT#1{{\global\advance\SNTable by1
\write\XREFileOut{\string#1}%
\def\JUNKA{\the\SNTable\space JUNK}%
{\edef\JUNKB{\write\XREFileOut{\JUNKA}}\JUNKB}%
\write\XREFileOut{\the\count0}%
\the\SNTable}}
%
% Define a figure tag:
%
\def\SNF#1{{\global\advance\SNFigure by1
\write\XREFileOut{\string#1}%
\def\JUNKA{\the\SNFigure\space JUNK}%
{\edef\JUNKB{\write\XREFileOut{\JUNKA}}\JUNKB}%
\write\XREFileOut{\the\count0}%
\the\SNFigure}}
%
% Get all the sequence number data from file \jobname.XRF:
%
\def\GetSN{{\openin\XREFileIn=\jobname.XRF
\pushCount\InChapter
\pushCount\InUnit
\pushCount\InPage
\pushCount\MoreFlag
\ifeof\XREFileIn\MoreFlag=0 \else\MoreFlag=1 \fi\relax % \jobname.XRF exists?
\ifnum\MoreFlag=1 \relax
\loop
\read\XREFileIn to\LineIn
\ifeof\XREFileIn\MoreFlag=0 \else\MoreFlag=1 \fi
\ifnum\MoreFlag=1
\let\InTag=\LineIn
\read\XREFileIn to\LineIn
\edef\InValues{\LineIn}
\read\XREFileIn to\LineIn
\InPage=\LineIn
\edef\JUNK{\InValues\the\InPage}%
\global\expandafter\let\InTag=\JUNK
\repeat
\fi
\closein\XREFileIn
}}
%
% Get cross-references on 'chapters':
%
\def\SNCGetChapter#1{\ifx#1\undefined
\edef#1{\SNUNone}\else\fi
\expandafter\First#1 }
%
\def\SNCGetPage#1{\ifx#1\undefined
\edef#1{\SNUNone}\else\fi
\expandafter\Third#1 }
%
% Get cross-references on 'units':
%
\def\SNUGetChapter#1{\ifx#1\undefined
\edef#1{\SNUNone}\else\fi
\expandafter\First#1 }
%
\def\SNUGetUnit#1{\ifx#1\undefined
\edef#1{\SNUNone}\else\fi
\expandafter\Second#1 }
%
\def\SNUGetPage#1{\ifx#1\undefined
\edef#1{\SNUNone}\else\fi
\expandafter\Third#1 }
%
% Get cross-references on tables:
%
\def\SNTGetTable#1{\ifx#1\undefined
\edef#1{\SNTNone}\else\fi
\expandafter\First#1 }
%
\def\SNTGetPage#1{\ifx#1\undefined
\edef#1{\SNTNone}\else\fi
\expandafter\Third#1 }
%
% Get cross-references on figures:
%
\def\SNFGetFigure#1{\ifx#1\undefined
\edef#1{\SNFNone}\else\fi
\expandafter\First#1 }
%
\def\SNFGetPage#1{\ifx#1\undefined
\edef#1{\SNFNone}\else\fi
\expandafter\Third#1 }
%
% Read file \jobname.XRF here, now, before anything else.
% Get this reading done before any hint of a need to write
% to that file.
%
% Modified at 08:13:46 on Monday, January 4th, 2016.
%
% If a TeX file has
%
% {\bf \SNU{} Theorem:}\ \
%
% instead of, say,
%
% {\bf \SNU{\SNTagDA} Theorem:}\ \
%
% the TeX can die here:
%
\GetSN
%
% Important: First read file \jobname.XRF. Then open it
% for writing. This open will give the file length 0 and,
% thus, destroy the data, if any, just read. If
% execute
%
% \write\XREFileOut{\string#1}
%
% etc. without doing an open, then output will go to
% console.
%
% From some fairly careful experiments, commands
%
% \newread\XREFileIn
% \newwrite\XREFileOut
% \openout\XREFileOut=\jobname.XRF
% \closein\XREFileIn
%
% seem to ignore TeX block nesting and to be fully 'global'
% across blocks.
%
...
I've also published multiple books for myself and my friends and family using LaTeX, use LaTeX whenever I want to print out and post or distribute an article that looks crappy in the original, and I've long written my resumes in LaTeX.
Yes, I am a lawyer with mind dyslexia and I often got into trouble for missing stuff on my letters or rearranging the letters of things like the other parties names or case numbers etc. So I use the LaTeX letter document class and import the other parties information from an adr file. That way I only have to type the darn thing once. I think I can automate more stuff on documents where I often make errors but I'm just getting started with LaTeX. It's been a big stress reliever for me.
Interesting. I always instruct my lawyers to reference all counterparty information only once, either in the header or preferably in the signature block, and then make everything else reference an impersonal defined term. I hate transaction-specific information being littered randomly around a document.
FWIW, I prefer to use it (LaTex with Beamer) to make technical presentations at conferences. This[1] was my most recent output.
Though, I spent way too much time than I care to admit making those, especially tweaking the TikZ 'diagrams' (first time I tried) that can be seen later in the slides. I find it quite convincing.
For example, I wrote "iOS and macOS Performance Tuning: Cocoa, Cocoa Touch, Objective-C, and Swift"[1][2] using LaTeX, and I think it came out rather well (Pearson has some pretty amazing LaTeX compositors that took my rough ramblings and turned them into something beautiful).
Quite a while ago, I also used TeX (not LaTeX, IIRC) as part of the typesetting backend of a database publishing tool for the international ISBN agency, to publish the PID (Publisher's International Directory). This was a challenging project. IIRC, each of the directories (there were several) was >1000 pages, 4 column text in about a 4 point font. Without chapter breaks. My colleagues tried FrameMaker first on a subset, they let it run overnight and by morning it had kernel-panicked the NeXTStation we were running it on. The box had run out of swap.
TeX was great, it just chugged away at around 1-4 pages per second and never missed a beat. Customer was very happy. The most difficult part was getting TeX not to try so hard to get a "good layout", which wasn't possible given the constraints and for these types of entries just made everything looks worse.
I work on supply chain optimization at Target, and we write lots of internal documents in TeX. Admittedly the team has a relatively academic background—many PhDs in math, CS and OR—but it's still industry use :).
Some Word/PowerPoint creeps in as well, but I highly prefer the TeX documents. They look better, are easier to edit/reuse and slot neatly into Git. I really wish more people used it (or Markdown or whatever) instead of Office nonsense.
Completely agreed (happy LaTeX user in industry). However, I have recently been using org-mode for emacs and treating LaTeX as one possible output format. Being able to output to HTML/markdown is really useful for automating import into more commonly used tools.
For anything with non-trivial maths or structure, I'd still use LaTeX, but it's very nice to have an (easier, more portable) choice of output formats.
Unlike what most LaTeX users may think, LaTeX is actually not even widely adopted in academia, with less than 20% of scholarly articles published every year written using LaTeX (https://www.authorea.com/107393-how-many-scholarly-articles-...). That said, it is the only powerful option to professional typeset mathematical notation. And for that reason, it is used by few in some non-academic research fields (military, gov, pharma, tech, HN readers).
As a sysadmin I use it, though to be fair most often in the form of emacs org-mode export to latex because I like the way it makes stuff look (so I'm not editing in latex unless I need to for some reason, which you can do in snippets inside org mode). Resumes, and anything I want to be formal such as latters and invitations I also use it for.
Well, this was in academia and it was a long time ago, but when I was in college at the turn of the century I used it. Once I noticed that the exact same paper got a whole extra grade in LaTeX, I never went back to word processors.
But man, does anybody actually get value out of their business cards? No interesting opportunity has ever come up for me as a result of sharing business cards.
At some point I stopped taking them with me. I still have a bunch of them in my desk drawer, they're very outdated, and I only use them for grocery lists.
Is that just me, or are business cards going out of fashion in general?
I think the answer is, it depends. In the circles where I vend stuff, if you don't have one, people look at you as a grade-A idiot. Like you showed up to a meeting without pants/a skirt on.
Heck, even when I go to startup meetups, everyone asks for a card (medium-sized Pacific Northwest city).
If they're going out of style, they're still fashionable here.
I hand them out frequently. Sometimes to people I already know who want my contact information. It's easier to hand someone a card versus disrupting an interesting conversation to exchange details.
We got our first big break 4 months ago by giving out a business card. You have to make a connection first before you slip the card. I think your experience is more a reflection of your selling skills than anything.
Don't travel to Japan without business cards. It's really awkward when everyone gives you one and asks for one back, as I think exchanging them is an important part of meeting someone there.
I trade cards with vendor sales reps and support people who visit. They have my info so they can let me know about new products or obsolescence issues, and I have their info so I can call them for support and product information.
> Is that just me, or are business cards going out of fashion in general?
Because you don't do business obviously.
When you go to events, business shows, networking events, conferences, hiring fair... you give business cards to your contact so they can remember who you are and contact you back. It is very important.
Really interesting business cards, simply cannot look like a business card, and the direct communication features (contact details) are secondary.
If a business card can delight people who receive it, then it has a point.
In this epoch, if sharing contact details requires a hardcopy, I'm of the opinion that it's of very limited value. Although it's useful to have business cards for many locales, since they are a customary item. (In many parts of Asia, it's essential)
So, if a card can communicate some meta information (sense of creativity, problem solving, good humor etc.) That's going to have value. It will create an interesting memory.
I think it's worth having a few designs made, but it's a matter of ROI.
If you think you need a business card, think about why, where and who they are for.
> If a business card can delight people who receive it, then it has a point.
The first rule of the advertising club is AIDA: Attention, Interest, Desire, Action. A business card should draw attention, if only to distract from the terribly clichéd action of handing over a business card :)
I'm guessing that you don't live in Japan. There, opportunities may or may not come after you have executed your card exchange, but don't leave home without them.
I regularly hire and contract out work based on business cards hauled from conferences, travel, et cetera. At the end of the evening I make notes on the back. (Right after meeting someone interesting, I crease a corner.)
As other poster said, business cards are important in Asia (not only Japan). Hand it over and receive it with two hands, inspect it carefully, hold it or leave it on the table for a while (don't just stuff it away immediately).
Having said that, I have for a while now used a dedicated email address for business cards to track its effectiveness, and extremely rarely receive anything on there.
I think the pages look better when justified. Also, the width is about the same as a typical book, so you don't have to move your eyes much when reading it.
So since this about latex it feels appropriate to point this out. Justified works well when you have auto word hyphenation turned on, and your layouts are fixed. Web doesn't do word hyphenation (I think?), so the words have odd spacing between them, it sort of stands out right away. Justification works in latex because of word breaking, but even then one has to manually fix underfilled or overfilled lines (I.e. by slightly changing word usage). For web content where you have less control over these things (as opposed to printing for a fixed layout via PDF), ragged right often works better.
CSS3 has automatic hyphenation (hyphens: auto) which you can tweak with manual soft-hyphens (­), and there are client-side hyphenators (Hyphenator.js, Hypher) available as fallbacks.
This is nice to know! Still, unless the formatting is fixed (by distilling to PDF), there is no way to deal with the under and overflows that arise from an aggressive (and hence decent looking type setter).
In March 2014, I attended a conference in Atlanta.
In the subway, some nice guy told me I had to make business cards for the conference. So I went to some kinko and asked:
- How much for 250 business cards?
- $69.
- If I provide a PDF and just ask you to print and cut, can you do it for today?
- Yes.
- How much?
- $39. Do you have the file?
- Yes.
It was a lie. I opened a new LaTeX document and typed this thing, thanks to Stack Overflow.
I believe he means when he responded "Yes" to the final question (as in "Yes, I have the PDF file for the business card"), he was lying and had nothing. So he quickly searched SO and found what he needed.
Sometimes, that's just what Stack Overflow is there for: a quickly accessible CYA!
It was a lie though, the fact you can then go on to do something such that the other party is never aware of the lie does not stop it from being a lie.
Most interactions are full of such lies, particularly between people with very different skill sets. Lies are social lubricants, and often have very little drama associated with them.
We do however have an interesting social stigma associated with the term "lie", much like "manipulate".
If you're going to go through all the trouble of typesetting a business card in LaTeX, you really ought to use Computer Modern Roman so that folks know you typeset it in LaTeX. (Related; resumes in CMR always have +10 credibility.)
I think this need not be the case. When creating this, I wanted it to look good and the way I wanted it. Not make it scream "LaTeX".
For a CV, Computer Modern might be more apt since there's also more text on it. But again, why make it scream LaTeX if one can do it more subtle and make it more personal at the same time?
Do note that I have a LaTeX PDF style CV as well, but it's not linked in the article (nor available online).
I edit a genre fiction and we do all our layout in XeTeX. I picked it because it's the right tool for the job, and I don't know PageMaker. The colophon calls attention to it because I think it's helpful to tell others how you made something (typefaces, tools, etc.) rather than for nerd cred.
Huh, totally weird. Maybe it's an encoding issue? The character appear to be getting shifted by -39 (ex. c 143 ->D 104) I never noticed because I'm typesetting for print.
FWIW, my $BOSS-2 had a PhD, loved LaTeX and even set one of our lower-level guys on writing all our company-internal docs in LaTeX. It actually worked out pretty well.
I imagine that an obviously-LaTeX resume (look for the ligatures, the correct spacing between sentences vice after periods, the clean, consistent grey across the page, the bold, clean margins) would play especially well with him. As you might guess from the preceding sentence, it'd probably play pretty well with me, too!
Good point, I fear it could backfire in a business setting. Mind you, I'm a huge LaTeX fan, but the one study I'm aware of that compared the efficiency of Word and LaTeX for a couple of average writing tasks came to a pretty damning conclusion (see quote below). So, I'd argue that LaTeX is the right tool for long math-heavy texts under version control, while better tools exist for most other tasks.
> LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users.
At the moment the code is pretty ugly and there's a bit of personal information (e.g. phone number) I don't want to post online. I might write a blog post on creating a custom CV, but that's for some time in the future ;) (not really sure when)
It does. It is intended to mimic handwriting in blackboards. I use it for slides when teaching or presenting to informal audiences.
If you don't like it, a good alternative to Computer Modern is Latin Modern. A nice derivative which is not so thin. Reading long Computer Modern texts gets a bit tiring for my eyes. I think some editors like LyX default to Latin Modern instead of Computer Modern.
Aside, The Art of Prolog uses an amazing Lucida variant. It'd be my favorite for math texts if it was free.
> Good TeX should simply yield to good typography.
Making it look like tech can make it appear like you're one of the in-crowd. Although I personally try to avoid exactly that, I can see it being an advantage in -- for example -- CVs. Fwiw, my CV is also done in LaTex. I hope it doesn't show too much: http://stbr.me/cv
Me nods. I clicked on it with a 100% expectation to see Computer Modern Roman (CMR) font, only to be surprised. Not that I was repulsed with what I saw. Still nice, but I'd have also posted a variant with CMR. :-)
Computer Modern is a hideous font. It's particularly terrible when rendered in Postscript/PDF, which is how almost all documents produced with it actually get read.
But the +10 credibility is absolutely true. It's like CS grunge style: when you wear ugly clothes, you look more authentic.
Times New Roman often means that you created the document with an old version of Microsoft Word (before Calibri became the default) and never bothered to customize anything.
Computer Modern has a very high contrast of thick and thin strokes, and the axis of the strokes is completely vertical. This makes it very difficult to render on bitmap displays: you can end up with 3-pixel lines next to 1-pixel lines, and the optical compensations of antialiasing can't fix the visual appearance because most of the lines are orthogonal.
These characteristics of the font are intentional: it's really a showcase for Knuth's Metafont system which lets you tweak stroke contrast to a high level, so you can create many weight and casing variations of Computer Modern parametrically. And it does look bearable in print. But it's really the worst possible screen font.
Times is much better in this respect because it was designed for readability long before computers, for newspaper printing where unexpected ink bleed and other artifacts were daily routine.
(Cynically, it's possible to view Computer Modern as a fitting portrait of computer science itself: the font is used because it's exciting to have 62 tweakable parameters in a system designed by someone famous in the field, not because it's any good for the end users.)
Okay, so you're not saying it's always hideous; you're saying it's hideous on screen. I think you're wrong even there: some of the screens that have come out in the last few years have resolutions near that of cheap inkjet printers, and on those screens Computer Modern looks okay. If you don't have access to such screens, there is a simple trick you can use instead: just set your zoom to something like 10x. The font looks glorious then, in my opinion. The one tiny problem is that nothing fits on the screen :)
I suspect his problem is more with Windows and its brain-dead font rendering. Vertical strokes are the ideal case for subpixel anti-aliasing on a typical LCD: you get 3x the horizontal resolution. On a typical 100dpi screen this gives you 300dpi horizontal resolution, which is around the low-end for print quality. On modern 200dpi "retina" displays, you get 600dpi horizontal resolution which is more than enough to make Computer Modern look good. But ClearType has a strong preference for aligning positions and sizes to whole pixels, giving you horrendous kerning and sudden large jumps in font size and apparent weight as you increase the requested font size.
I'm using a Retina MacBook. The readability problem with Computer Modern is intrinsic to its design, and even a 200 dpi screen just isn't enough to make it look good (IMHO). But it's definitely much worse still on Windows.
My question is: why use this particular 1980s font developed to showcase a dead-end stroke rendering technology, when there are much better alternatives around?
Why use it? It's the default, and otherwise you have to find a math font and text font that go together all on your own. At least that's why I use it: laziness.
I agree at 200dpi is not quite enough for Computer Modern. But I claim that, say, 7200dpi is far more than enough, and then it looks great.
Computer Modern is now one of the most overused typefaces on the planet. It looks great for that “Victorian-era American-style math paper” look.
People should mostly avoid it otherwise, IMO. There are plenty of better alternatives for typesetting pretty mathematics.
* * *
More generally about the thread here, TeX is not a productive or effective tool for making business cards or other heavily graphical documents. The point of TeX is to handle standard typesetting of structured prose and mathematical notation. Any time you need flexible layout control, TeX turns into more trouble than it’s worth.
Someone using a dedicated graphical page layout or vector graphics tool is going to make a better business card (or poster, or flyer, or diagram, or ...) in less time, in a way which is much easier to modify later.
You managed to name a bunch of typefaces which are even less suitable for tasks where someone might use Computer Modern (Times is comparable). I’m not sure what that proves....
On the one hand, I tend to agree with you. I used LaTeX (with beamer) to make several slideshows over the past few years, and it seems safe to say that this is not the exactly the kind of thing that plays to TeX's strengths.
On the other hand, there exist wizards who do things like this:
(check out the pink one with hearts; note that it uses random numbers so it doesn't even come out the same way each time, try doing that with anything but TeX (just don't ask why you'd want to); there's also one other that also used random numbers)
That page’s examples are mostly a bunch of paragraphs of prose (that part, TeX is great at), some with fancy formatting that took significantly more effort than the equivalent effect in InDesign or QuarkXPress. The one with the Zapfino doesn’t bother using any alternate glyphs (arguably the main reason to ever use Zapfino). A few others are vector graphics projects that would be best done in Illustrator, Inkscape, or similar. As you go down the list, the examples (like the thing with the hearts) start to be examples of tacky overwrought things slapped together by amateurs.
Obviously TeX is an extremely flexible system, and it’s possible (fun even!) to use it for all kinds of purposes it wasn’t designed for. Analogously, it would also be possible to write a web application in assembly code running on an Arduino. I said it wasn’t a very effective or productive tool for the job, not that it wasn’t possible.
What I meant to say was that in the hands of the right person, it would be effective and productive, but since you're not particularly convinced by anything on that page, I think I'll have to concede this point. You win :)
> TeX is not a productive or effective tool for making business cards or other heavily graphical documents.
Agreed. See the study "An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used in Academic Research and Development" which concludes
"LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users."
The study does claim though that LaTeX users had more fun while doing worse work, so there's that... :-)
This conclusion makes me wonder if they were measuring LaTeX users while they were writing a new type of document for the first time.
My experience has been that once a given type of document has been written and tweaked to your satisfaction in LaTeX, the next time you write that type of document, you can just reuse the previous document as a template and not have to tweak much at all.
The first document does tend to require lots of tweaking, I'll grant that, especially if you're doing anything unusual that isn't covered by an existing LaTeX package.
Another thing that makes a big difference with LaTeX is the tools that are used to write it. If the "expert LaTeX" authors were writing LaTeX completely by hand, with no aid from any specialized tools, then that would explain their many mistakes. The use of advanced tools like the various LaTeX packages for vim and emacs make writing LaTeX documents a lot more streamlined and less error-prone.
When I see a resume in CMR I get the signal that the applicant still has their head in academia. That can be good or bad, in my particular field it's not that great.
I typeset my resume in LaTeX, but I ended up formatting it so it looked almost exactly like it did in Word. I should probably update that at some point.
But I did throw a \LaTeX macro in the skills section, so anyone familiar LaTeX should notice.
Has anyone ever used QR codes on the business cards or store doors? It seems like a waste of space, you need to have a special app on your phone to read it. I think most people don't use that.
The AOSP camera app does not support QR code reading, and neither does Google's camera app. Many Android phones will have one or both of these installed. Most phones also come with a manufacturer-specific camera app. I know new-ish Motorola phones will read QR codes, and I suspect that the "kitchen sink" vendors like Samsung would as well.
It is kind of indirect, Google Now Screen Search supports QR Codes, so if you have a way to get the code onto your screen (via the camera app viewfinder for example) you can read it.
Nope. Can't read QR code an android out of the box.
You need to get 1 out of 100 applications from the app store, that competes for the one who can shows the most ads and be the least effective at decoding the picture.
Are you saying that the iPhone camera can read QR code out of the box?
> You need to get 1 out of 100 applications from the app store, that competes for the one who can shows the most ads and be the least effective at decoding the picture.
The ZXing Barcode Scanner doesn't show any ads. IIRC, they give it away for free because they want people to use their (open source, natch) barcode library. I've been very happy with it.
This of course demonstrates a problem with the App Store model: neither Google nor Apple has a strong incentive or interest in directing users to the best, most secure, most privacy-preserving apps (particularly Google, who would prefer that privacy become a thing of the past): they would much rather that you buy something, or use some ad-ridden piece of nearly malware.
Yeah, I find it so strange that the Google Authenticator setup includes a step to download a recommended 3rd-party scanner scanner, given that GA is pretty much the most important app security-wise you can install on the phone.
There actually is a first-party app from Google that can read QR codes: Google Goggles. Besides QR codes, I've also found it handy for scanning the ISBN bar codes of books that I want to remember.
Google Now has QR code reading built in, if you have a QR code on the screen (e.g through a camera app) you can have google now scan the screen by holding the home button.
I don't remember having to enable it, but if it isn't enabled for android users you can go into Google Now settings and enable "Screen Search".
Exactly. It doesn't save the user much time at all, if any, and it detracts from the simplicity of a clean design. It's a solution in search of a problem.
I've actually-used QR codes once or twice, in the last... six years. I still have software that'll scan them installed, but just because Scanbot coincidentally does it as a side-effect of what I actually use it for.
That said, the use on this card of encoding a complete vCard is actually pretty decent. It's not a tiny URL which you could enter in a few seconds.
One of the first apps I install on my phone is ZXing's Barcode Scanner, specifically so I can scan QR codes. On Android, it's hands-down the easiest way to post WiFi details for a LAN party or similar (no idea how to do it with iPhones — maybe Apple sells some $99 AirWiFiScanner thing?).
I'll scan 'em to see if there's useful info there. I'm a little concerned that there may be some way to do something malicious with a QR code, but I don't believe I've ever seen a POC.
I'll also use them to set up TOTP. Incredibly easy.
Honestly, I wish that they were used more often. In my experience they work flawlessly.
Most phones nowadays have a shortcut button from the lock screen to open the camera, I wish the phone companies would have one shortcut for a barcode scanner. Or in the camera app, have an extra button to turn the scanner on -- mine has "take picture" and "take video", the scanner reads the live preview until ut recognizes a barcode.
Not on business cards & store doors, but WeChat Pay and Alipay both use QR codes for payment, so anywhere between 1-5 times a day. The washing machines downstairs too.
I think it might have been easier starting with the `standalone` document class vs `article`, then you don't have to spend so much time on set-up. You just have to make sure the tikz pictures are the right size, and standalone will put each picture on a new page.
I was typing quickly from memory. With The TeXBook, on page 411 he has a concert program; on page 248 he has a genealogy chart; on page 247 he has some nicely formatted stock tables;
on pages 233, 236-7 he has some recipe stuff from Julia Child.
So, instead of a menu, I found a
concert program and some recipes.
Maybe there is a menu in there
someplace.
He also has an addressed envelope where he used his Metafont in some tricky way to get something like a stamp. He might also be able to get from TeX with Metafont the whatever they are called little boxes of geometric gibberish used as identifiers.
I did some TeX macros for foils -- I get a nice box around each foil. Some more macros I did let me do a simple drawing in, say, old Microsoft Photodraw, include it in a picture in a TeX document, and then position TeX math as annotation overlays on the drawing. So, I can, say, draw a right triangle and put the standard Pythagorean theorem annotation on the figure. Can put darned nearly any TeX expression as annotation. TeX is nice and for math nearly essential.
You don't need an advanced text formatting system to design a business card. Any system that allows you to place short strings of text at any desired (x,y) position will do just fine. In fact, such a simple system might be better at not getting in your way.
The author addresses this in the second paragraph.
> I picked LaTeX because I want to have a platform independent implementation and because why not? I really like making LaTeX documents, so this seemed like something other than creating long documents.
The front side design is very tolerant of inherent printing tolerances, but the backside design is poor (in that it will highlight, rather than hide, the inherent tolerances in cutting). The human eye can readily see the difference in thickness of the white border. A far more tolerant design would take the green fill all the way to the edge. It's not the end of the world to have the backside of your business card have slightly uneven margins, but if you're equally happy with a full fill (and you bleed it beyond the cut lines), you'll never end up with a visibly bad cut.
Wow! Thanks for that link. It matches with my experience over the years. I think choosing in-gamut colors to start is a good practice though. It saves frustration later on.
NP. I do have a fair amount of relevant experience in the space: almost 14 years working for what is almost surely the highest volume seller of business cards online. ;)
I've done all my business cards in TeX, just Plain TeX, not LaTeX, for years.
It's just a simple TeX exercise.
I have the spacing so that the printing goes to some standard card stock for business cards with the positioning just right. Then bending the printed card stock results in a stack of business cards. Works great. Simple.
Vertical card layouts look cool, but they aren't very practical for people with longer names or surnames.
To me this design seems right if you're English or Chinese, but try using it with your Greek or Basque name, or with the Spanish tradition of double (maternal and paternal) surnames.
I completely agree and would add that your name, telephone number and email address should be a large enough font that people don't have to take out their reading glasses or squint to read it.
I took graphic design in school (so I've seen plenty of business card concepts) and I just wanted to say that's the most creative card I've seen in years! I'd cherish something like that if you gave it to me - no matter how much they cost the impact is definitely worth it. Wow!
For me it even jumped to the top if I was not extremely careful and conscious when scrolling vertically, never even made it to the end of the description of the front side before giving up in desperation.
222 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 406 ms ] threadI recently re-did my business cards. Pretty happy with how they came out: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C25LX0bXAAAWWYL.jpg:large
Same for astronomy/astrophysics. Most of the publications are typeset in LaTeX.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_FrameMaker
But I am totally willing to accept my role as an outlier... I even wrote a small TeX package at one point, so I'm aware it's not a "fun" system. :P
I love TeX -- it's one of my favorite and most important tools.
I have a Ph.D. in applied math, and IMHO TeX (or LaTeX) is just essential, call that more than ESSENTIAL for my work.
E.g., now I'm a "solo founder" of a startup, a Web site. The crucial core of the work is some original applied math I derived. So, yup, i typed it into TeX. So, as I wrote the corresponding software, I referred back to the TeX output of my core math -- worked great!
Without the math, the software would be impossible; one would just look at the screen and wonder what the heck to type. With the math, the software was just routine, essentially just trivial.
For typing material with a lot of math, I see no reasonable alternative to TeX or LaTeX.
I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation with word processing (thankfully!) but without TeX. What a pain. I could have included more math in the dissertation if I'd had TeX to do the word whacking. More generally, at one point in my career, I could easily have written and published a lot of original and tutorial applied math but didn't because of the difficulty of the math word whacking before TeX.
The last paper I published, some a bit wild mathematical statistics, was a good test for TeX -- some of my mathematical expressions in subscripts were a bit much, but TeX worked flawlessly!
If anyone is typing a lot of mathematical material and objects to TeX, then just encourage them to do the typing without TeX and see if they like that world better!
Computing is changing the world in major ways, some just astounding and/or astoundingly good; math is helping, a lot now and will more in the future; and TeX is just crucial for getting the math word whacking done. But Knuth knew that and did a great job.
So far, for the near and distant future of computing, TeX is one of the stronger pillars of civilization.
I'm a Ph.D. student in applied math as well, currently.
I tried a grad math department and didn't like it: (1) In a course in real analysis, early on the prof discussed some set theory. The summer before I'd had an NSF thing in axiomatic set theory, Suppes, von Neumann, an appendix in Kelley, etc. His first test had a problem, and at the last minute I saw a solution and wrote it down. He called me on the carpet -- nasty guy. I apologized for using little omega for its usual meaning without defining it, and then he saw that my solution was better than his and I was off the carpet. Bummer. He was too quick to cut me off at the knees. (2) Course was in Kelley, General Topology. As a ugrad senior, I'd lectured a prof once a week and covered all of it except the last chapter on compactness when I cut out to finish my honors paper [The typing was so hard that from rolling the carriage a half step my left arm hurt for a year!] But the course in grad school, same book, was beneath me. I turned in a stack of solved exercises and was a nice guy -- I didn't submit any I'd done in ugrad. Waste of time. (3) There was an abstract algebra course from Herstein's book -- by then nearly all beneath me. E.g., my ugrad honors paper had been on group representation theory which is heavy linear algebra and abstract algebra stuff. I solved some exercise in ring theory and got sent to a full prof. The only thing new in the course for me was Galois theory, so I studied that some weekend and took an oral exam for the course. Waste of time.
I wanted the math for math-physics but didn't see how to get that there. Certainly not Galois theory. There were some good ways but not with the courses they put me in. The specs for the q-exams were a disaster -- the faculty committee had a political train wreck. Bummer.
I got recruited by the NBS&T in DC. Getting to DC then was the land of milk and honey for applied math. I got married, and she went for her Ph.D.
We had a great time, good French cheese, some quite good French wine, lots of plays, concerts, trips to Shenandoah, etc.
I got into descriptive statistics, multi-variate statistics, statistical hypothesis testing, numerical linear algebra, curve fitting, the fast Fourier transform, second order stationary stochastic processes, extrapolation, and power spectral estimation, optimization, the Navier-Stokes equations, did a lot of catch up reading in the basics, a lot more in linear algebra, multi-variate calculus, e.g., exterior algebra, and more. Kept busy. Had a great time. Also got into computing in a fairly big way. Got some nice items, e.g., two new cars, etc.
My favorite book on my bookshelf, including for applied math, is J. Neveu, Mathematical Foundations of the Calculus of Probability.
Worked in industry and saw some problems in combinatorial optimization, deterministic optimal control, and stochastic optimal control, identified a problem in stochastic optimal control and found an intuitive solution, applied to grad school in applied math. Got into Cornell, Brown, Princeton, and more.
Independently in my first summer did the research for my dissertation in stochastic optimal control. Had lots of delays having to do with my wife and, then, our budgeting. In a rush, wrote some corresponding software in two months, much of it over Xmas at wife's family farm, and wrote and typed in the final dissertation in six weeks, stood for orals, and got my Ph.D.
During Ph.D., did work in military systems analysis, some optimization, statistics, and Monte Carlo -- wrote the corresponding software.
The day my wife got her Ph.D. she was in a clinical depression from the stress. To help her get better, I took a job I didn't want as a B-school prof in applied math (also played a leadership role in campus computing and did some consulting) but was near her home family farm that I hoped would help her. It didn't. I took a job in AI at IBM's Watson lab and did some optimization, mathematical statistics, and AI. My wife never recovered ...
My software now is 100,000 lines of typing with about 25,000 programming language statements and the rest voluminous comments. About 80,000 of the 100,000 are for on-line, and the rest are for off-line, occasional batch runs for some of the data manipulations. There is some light usage of SQL Server.
I am basing on Windows and the .NET Framework. For the Web site, that is Microsoft's IIS (Internet Information Server -- handles the TCP/IP Web site communications and much more leaving a nice environment for my code for the actual Web pages) and ASP.NET for the Web page controls (single line text boxes, links, check boxes, radio buttons, etc.).
My Web pages and my code for the pages is just dirt simple -- Microsoft writes a little JavaScript for me, and I have yet to write a single line of it. There's no use of Ajax, no pull downs, pop ups, roll overs, overlays, icons, etc. The Web site is also dirt simple, a seven year old who knows no English and has only a cheap smart phone dirt simple.
I wrote a little C code; am using some open source C code, and otherwise wrote all the code in Visual Basic .NET -- seems fine to me. The important stuff is the math I derived; given the math, the code is routine, and Visual Basic .NET is well up to the work. Since I don't like C syntax, I don't like the syntax of C#. Maybe someday I will convert to C#, but in an important sense Visual Basic .NET to C# is just converting to a different flavor of syntactic sugar -- indeed, IIRC there is a translator.
So, I'm an entrepreneur working to sell the results of some math I derived.
So, to do such a thing, think of a problem and a solution, write the code, sell the results. Of course, problem selection is a biggie. And want a problem that can solve and with own applied math with a better solution than available otherwise; want the software not too much to write; want the computing resources within what is reasonable now or soon (possibly considering the cloud); want the results to be a must have instead of just a nice to have for enough users/customers times money per each to make some big bucks.
If you are a solo founder, then you get to avoid a common cause of failure -- founder disputes. As a founder, you SHOULD understand all the work, so if you are a solo founder you will!
Don't expect any equity funders to write you a check until you have revenue significant and growing rapidly. Thus, as a solo founder with revenue significant and growing rapidly you won't accept their check. No one in equity funding has yet seen even 10 cents from applied math research; you won't get back even laughs. Ph.D. academics is really good at work that is "new, correct, and significant". Business just HATES anything really new or significant and has no idea how to check "correct". E.g., the information technology VCs keep looking for simplistic, empirical patterns and have no idea how to evaluate anything new. Really, their looking for such patterns is likely also just a publicity scam; instead, they want to invest money in a business where accountants working for their limited partners, who, if that is possible, know even less about math, can say that they made a good investment. In an analogy, they want to buy a ticket on a plane that has already reached nice altitude and is climbing quickly. Maybe the startup will take their money if there are five founders, all exhausted, all with all credit cards maxed out, and each with a pregnant wife.
For a good applied mathematician -- with some original, powerful, valuable work, good at software, with a business with significant revenue growing rapidly -- to report to a BoD of business people, essentially anyone else in business, is a bummer. E.g., at an early BoD meeting you will outline an applied math project for some nice progress in the business, and about the time you get to sufficient statistics, an ergodic assumption, completeness of Hilbert space, the polar decomposition, ...
I am working in numerical methods for PDE so some of this was far afield but it does make sense that those are the areas ripe for opportunity.
Seriously, appreciate it.
I think that's one of the jobs of an advisor: to encourage his students to strive to be better and do better.
I like the one about the Deutsche Bahn (german railway company) using TeX to typeset the time tables on the train stations.
The downloadable files containing several time tables say:
While the ones with just a single one say:The presentation and content are excellent.
https://musescore.org/en/node/64711
What I'm seeing is that the use of typesetting and even its cousin, word processing, are generally going downhill. My employer has largely given up on print advertising. If we write papers, they're for the more commercial oriented journals or trade mags, that don't use TeX for their own typesetting.
More and more, I see stuff that's just written in the e-mail editor, with graphics copy-pasta'd from screen captures, or directly into web based services such as Office 365. Or, PowerPoint (with all of the pitfalls described by Edward Tufte).
Word processing has practically been relegated to documents that nobody reads, such as functional procedures and announcements from HR.
I realize this all sounds kind of cynical, but I hope is taken in good humor. However, the gist is that writing and correspondence are becoming increasingly informal.
I don't really love it though, I find myself using org-mode more and more for that purpose, then I let emacs generate the latex code for my doc. It's not nearly as flexible but it works well and your source is a lot more readable.
I also use LaTeX for my resume, if you find a good theme they end up looking pretty sharp and professional with little work.
Related: I wrote a resume in LaTeX a few years ago. After an in-person interview, the manager took me to meet the team: When we walked in, they were crowded around a monitor arguing about figure out how I'd made such a cool-looking CV. It probably didn't actually look all that good, but anything that isn't Word stands out nowadays.
I also have something similar but simpler for bibliographic references.
TeX, some TeX macros, a good text editor with a good macro language (e.g., KEdit), and a good spell checker (e.g., ASpell with the last TeX distribution I got) are super good writing tools to have.
Offered as-is, no warranties. Use at own risk.
They work nicely for me. I haven't looked at the code in years, so there may be some dependencies, likely minor, maybe just in documentation, on some of my other macros.
There may be some subtle bugs, but I haven't found any. If you find a bug and know just what usage encounters the bug, then don't do that usage again! Or fix the bug!
There is enough documentation so that you can see the ideas -- actually they are all quite simple. The macros were a good TeX exercise.
Though, I spent way too much time than I care to admit making those, especially tweaking the TikZ 'diagrams' (first time I tried) that can be seen later in the slides. I find it quite convincing.
I'm pleased with the end result.
[1] http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/...
For example, I wrote "iOS and macOS Performance Tuning: Cocoa, Cocoa Touch, Objective-C, and Swift"[1][2] using LaTeX, and I think it came out rather well (Pearson has some pretty amazing LaTeX compositors that took my rough ramblings and turned them into something beautiful).
Quite a while ago, I also used TeX (not LaTeX, IIRC) as part of the typesetting backend of a database publishing tool for the international ISBN agency, to publish the PID (Publisher's International Directory). This was a challenging project. IIRC, each of the directories (there were several) was >1000 pages, 4 column text in about a 4 point font. Without chapter breaks. My colleagues tried FrameMaker first on a subset, they let it run overnight and by morning it had kernel-panicked the NeXTStation we were running it on. The box had run out of swap.
TeX was great, it just chugged away at around 1-4 pages per second and never missed a beat. Customer was very happy. The most difficult part was getting TeX not to try so hard to get a "good layout", which wasn't possible given the constraints and for these types of entries just made everything looks worse.
[1] https://www.pearsonhighered.com/program/Weiher-i-OS-and-mac-...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321842847/ref=as_li_tl?ie...
Some Word/PowerPoint creeps in as well, but I highly prefer the TeX documents. They look better, are easier to edit/reuse and slot neatly into Git. I really wish more people used it (or Markdown or whatever) instead of Office nonsense.
For anything with non-trivial maths or structure, I'd still use LaTeX, but it's very nice to have an (easier, more portable) choice of output formats.
- Latex is widely adopted in hard science.
- Latex is not widely used in other disciplines such as sport science.
I think this matches with what most latex users think.
But man, does anybody actually get value out of their business cards? No interesting opportunity has ever come up for me as a result of sharing business cards.
At some point I stopped taking them with me. I still have a bunch of them in my desk drawer, they're very outdated, and I only use them for grocery lists.
Is that just me, or are business cards going out of fashion in general?
Heck, even when I go to startup meetups, everyone asks for a card (medium-sized Pacific Northwest city).
If they're going out of style, they're still fashionable here.
I trade cards with vendor sales reps and support people who visit. They have my info so they can let me know about new products or obsolescence issues, and I have their info so I can call them for support and product information.
Because you don't do business obviously.
When you go to events, business shows, networking events, conferences, hiring fair... you give business cards to your contact so they can remember who you are and contact you back. It is very important.
If a business card can delight people who receive it, then it has a point.
In this epoch, if sharing contact details requires a hardcopy, I'm of the opinion that it's of very limited value. Although it's useful to have business cards for many locales, since they are a customary item. (In many parts of Asia, it's essential)
So, if a card can communicate some meta information (sense of creativity, problem solving, good humor etc.) That's going to have value. It will create an interesting memory.
I think it's worth having a few designs made, but it's a matter of ROI.
If you think you need a business card, think about why, where and who they are for.
The first rule of the advertising club is AIDA: Attention, Interest, Desire, Action. A business card should draw attention, if only to distract from the terribly clichéd action of handing over a business card :)
Having said that, I have for a while now used a dedicated email address for business cards to track its effectiveness, and extremely rarely receive anything on there.
I repeated enough times to fill a page, printed it, and cut the cards.
I think the pages look better when justified. Also, the width is about the same as a typical book, so you don't have to move your eyes much when reading it.
- How much for 250 business cards? - $69. - If I provide a PDF and just ask you to print and cut, can you do it for today? - Yes. - How much? - $39. Do you have the file? - Yes.
It was a lie. I opened a new LaTeX document and typed this thing, thanks to Stack Overflow.
https://github.com/jilljenn/business-card
why? are they checking for business cards at the entrance or something?
Sometimes, that's just what Stack Overflow is there for: a quickly accessible CYA!
Most interactions are full of such lies, particularly between people with very different skill sets. Lies are social lubricants, and often have very little drama associated with them.
We do however have an interesting social stigma associated with the term "lie", much like "manipulate".
For a CV, Computer Modern might be more apt since there's also more text on it. But again, why make it scream LaTeX if one can do it more subtle and make it more personal at the same time?
Do note that I have a LaTeX PDF style CV as well, but it's not linked in the article (nor available online).
https://www.aliterate.org/aliterate-page47.pdf
The typefaces are Minion and Myriad.
Because the point of a business card is to effectively signal your impressiveness.
This comment could sound sarcastic but it's not. Even that marketing manager could be a nerd, and it would be awesome to find out.
I imagine that an obviously-LaTeX resume (look for the ligatures, the correct spacing between sentences vice after periods, the clean, consistent grey across the page, the bold, clean margins) would play especially well with him. As you might guess from the preceding sentence, it'd probably play pretty well with me, too!
Is vice Latin? It reminds me of pace (because of the "shape" of the word, haha), but I guess it means something akin to except?
So apparently what was meant is
correct spacing between sentences instead of after periods
If the technical people have a specific university background they might be familiar with it, and then either hate it or love it.
It's a good tool for writing large documents but does not signal anything except personal tastes.
> LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
any particular reason why? i for one would love to see it.
I dont like Computer Modern too much. I am very fond of Gentium [1]. For math, I love Euler [2], which is used in Concrete Mathematics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentium
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMS_Euler
If you don't like it, a good alternative to Computer Modern is Latin Modern. A nice derivative which is not so thin. Reading long Computer Modern texts gets a bit tiring for my eyes. I think some editors like LyX default to Latin Modern instead of Computer Modern.
Aside, The Art of Prolog uses an amazing Lucida variant. It'd be my favorite for math texts if it was free.
> Good TeX should simply yield to good typography.
Making it look like tech can make it appear like you're one of the in-crowd. Although I personally try to avoid exactly that, I can see it being an advantage in -- for example -- CVs. Fwiw, my CV is also done in LaTex. I hope it doesn't show too much: http://stbr.me/cv
Edit: thank you! Glad you like it.
Edit 2: sources at https://github.com/kaeluka/cv
Handy link (because it's actually quite hard to find): http://concentriclivers.appspot.com/LatinModernTTFHinted.7z
Seriously, there are many places (CS publishing) where there are biases against papers written in Word.
Source: wrote a psychology PhD in LaTeX.
But the +10 credibility is absolutely true. It's like CS grunge style: when you wear ugly clothes, you look more authentic.
These characteristics of the font are intentional: it's really a showcase for Knuth's Metafont system which lets you tweak stroke contrast to a high level, so you can create many weight and casing variations of Computer Modern parametrically. And it does look bearable in print. But it's really the worst possible screen font.
Times is much better in this respect because it was designed for readability long before computers, for newspaper printing where unexpected ink bleed and other artifacts were daily routine.
(Cynically, it's possible to view Computer Modern as a fitting portrait of computer science itself: the font is used because it's exciting to have 62 tweakable parameters in a system designed by someone famous in the field, not because it's any good for the end users.)
My question is: why use this particular 1980s font developed to showcase a dead-end stroke rendering technology, when there are much better alternatives around?
I agree at 200dpi is not quite enough for Computer Modern. But I claim that, say, 7200dpi is far more than enough, and then it looks great.
People should mostly avoid it otherwise, IMO. There are plenty of better alternatives for typesetting pretty mathematics.
* * *
More generally about the thread here, TeX is not a productive or effective tool for making business cards or other heavily graphical documents. The point of TeX is to handle standard typesetting of structured prose and mathematical notation. Any time you need flexible layout control, TeX turns into more trouble than it’s worth.
Someone using a dedicated graphical page layout or vector graphics tool is going to make a better business card (or poster, or flyer, or diagram, or ...) in less time, in a way which is much easier to modify later.
I'd hardly put Computer Modern in anywhere near the same category.
Instead of Calibri, the Microsoft-provided typeface to use for mathematics is Cambria, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambria_(typeface)#Cambria_Mat...
Personally I like Minion, http://www.typoma.com/en/fonts.html
Or combining some kind of Renaissance-style typeface with AMS Euler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMS_Euler
Or Lucida Math, https://tug.org/store/lucida/opentype.html
If you prefer Times, try MathTime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathTime TM Math http://www.micropress-inc.com/fonts/tmmath/tmmain.htm or STIX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project
For replacement fonts I also like Palatino
Maybe I just wasn't clear enough on that part, in which case I sincerely apologize for my poor communication skills.
I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess not. Makes me really wish HN had a more forgiving window for editing comments, but oh well.
On the other hand, there exist wizards who do things like this:
https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/134638/showcase-tex-...
(check out the pink one with hearts; note that it uses random numbers so it doesn't even come out the same way each time, try doing that with anything but TeX (just don't ask why you'd want to); there's also one other that also used random numbers)
Obviously TeX is an extremely flexible system, and it’s possible (fun even!) to use it for all kinds of purposes it wasn’t designed for. Analogously, it would also be possible to write a web application in assembly code running on an Arduino. I said it wasn’t a very effective or productive tool for the job, not that it wasn’t possible.
Agreed. See the study "An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used in Academic Research and Development" which concludes
"LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users."
The study does claim though that LaTeX users had more fun while doing worse work, so there's that... :-)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
My experience has been that once a given type of document has been written and tweaked to your satisfaction in LaTeX, the next time you write that type of document, you can just reuse the previous document as a template and not have to tweak much at all.
The first document does tend to require lots of tweaking, I'll grant that, especially if you're doing anything unusual that isn't covered by an existing LaTeX package.
Another thing that makes a big difference with LaTeX is the tools that are used to write it. If the "expert LaTeX" authors were writing LaTeX completely by hand, with no aid from any specialized tools, then that would explain their many mistakes. The use of advanced tools like the various LaTeX packages for vim and emacs make writing LaTeX documents a lot more streamlined and less error-prone.
When I see a resume in CMR I get the signal that the applicant still has their head in academia. That can be good or bad, in my particular field it's not that great.
But I did throw a \LaTeX macro in the skills section, so anyone familiar LaTeX should notice.
The AOSP camera app does not support QR code reading, and neither does Google's camera app. Many Android phones will have one or both of these installed. Most phones also come with a manufacturer-specific camera app. I know new-ish Motorola phones will read QR codes, and I suspect that the "kitchen sink" vendors like Samsung would as well.
You need to get 1 out of 100 applications from the app store, that competes for the one who can shows the most ads and be the least effective at decoding the picture.
Are you saying that the iPhone camera can read QR code out of the box?
The ZXing Barcode Scanner doesn't show any ads. IIRC, they give it away for free because they want people to use their (open source, natch) barcode library. I've been very happy with it.
This of course demonstrates a problem with the App Store model: neither Google nor Apple has a strong incentive or interest in directing users to the best, most secure, most privacy-preserving apps (particularly Google, who would prefer that privacy become a thing of the past): they would much rather that you buy something, or use some ad-ridden piece of nearly malware.
No, I meant that iOS doesn't have any built-in apps for it, so I always assumed Android must since QR codes are so prevalent.
Google Now has QR code reading built in, if you have a QR code on the screen (e.g through a camera app) you can have google now scan the screen by holding the home button.
I don't remember having to enable it, but if it isn't enabled for android users you can go into Google Now settings and enable "Screen Search".
What could it possibly be that's easier to convey through a QR code - especially given that it's on a bit of paper you can keep.
That said, the use on this card of encoding a complete vCard is actually pretty decent. It's not a tiny URL which you could enter in a few seconds.
I'll scan 'em to see if there's useful info there. I'm a little concerned that there may be some way to do something malicious with a QR code, but I don't believe I've ever seen a POC.
I'll also use them to set up TOTP. Incredibly easy.
Honestly, I wish that they were used more often. In my experience they work flawlessly.
Second, IIRC, Knuth did proudly use TeX to print dinner menu, invitations, or some such.
That's hilarious. Any sources on that?
That man is incredible.
So, instead of a menu, I found a concert program and some recipes. Maybe there is a menu in there someplace.
He also has an addressed envelope where he used his Metafont in some tricky way to get something like a stamp. He might also be able to get from TeX with Metafont the whatever they are called little boxes of geometric gibberish used as identifiers.
I did some TeX macros for foils -- I get a nice box around each foil. Some more macros I did let me do a simple drawing in, say, old Microsoft Photodraw, include it in a picture in a TeX document, and then position TeX math as annotation overlays on the drawing. So, I can, say, draw a right triangle and put the standard Pythagorean theorem annotation on the figure. Can put darned nearly any TeX expression as annotation. TeX is nice and for math nearly essential.
in which context?
[1] - https://www.neodynamic.com/Products/Help/BarcodeCF2.0/barcod...
> I picked LaTeX because I want to have a platform independent implementation and because why not? I really like making LaTeX documents, so this seemed like something other than creating long documents.
I don't currently use business cards but if that changed would probably do the same.
Hex colors don't map to CMYK at all. Your printer may be able to use a non-CMYK color using a special ink but that may cost more.
There are no crop marks or bleed. You'll want to add them.
https://support.dma.ucla.edu/help/tutorials/print_color_guid... has more information on the two color spaces' overlap.
The front side design is very tolerant of inherent printing tolerances, but the backside design is poor (in that it will highlight, rather than hide, the inherent tolerances in cutting). The human eye can readily see the difference in thickness of the white border. A far more tolerant design would take the green fill all the way to the edge. It's not the end of the world to have the backside of your business card have slightly uneven margins, but if you're equally happy with a full fill (and you bleed it beyond the cut lines), you'll never end up with a visibly bad cut.
Otherwise agreed on all points. Nice post!
It's just a simple TeX exercise.
I have the spacing so that the printing goes to some standard card stock for business cards with the positioning just right. Then bending the printed card stock results in a stack of business cards. Works great. Simple.
That just screams amateur.
To me this design seems right if you're English or Chinese, but try using it with your Greek or Basque name, or with the Spanish tradition of double (maternal and paternal) surnames.
People will write and take notes on the card. Can't take note on a dark background.
The most common question I get is "If I install the chips, what do I get?" Unfortunately, the answer is nothing. There are people who have done that.
https://github.com/letientai299/cv
Can LaTeX do that?
[1] - http://i.imgur.com/NxCZ32J.jpg