From e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Norbert Preining Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:46:59 +0900 Subject: Initial commit --- usergrps/uktug/baskervi/5_2/cameron.tex | 150 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 150 insertions(+) create mode 100644 usergrps/uktug/baskervi/5_2/cameron.tex (limited to 'usergrps/uktug/baskervi/5_2/cameron.tex') diff --git a/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/5_2/cameron.tex b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/5_2/cameron.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ecc7e25989 --- /dev/null +++ b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/5_2/cameron.tex @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ + +\title{Something is happening, but you don't know what it is} +\author[Peter J. Cameron]{Peter J. Cameron\\ +School of Mathematical Sciences\\Queen Mary +and Westfield College\\Mile End Road\\London +E1 4NS} +\begin{Article} + +This is intended as a worm's-eye view of what is happening to +\TeX\ in the mathematical community at present. It seems +to me that there are some problems. + +I have earned my living as a mathematician for 24 years. +For half that time, the tools of my trade included a portable +typewriter and large quantities of Tipp-Ex, and all formulae +were written in by hand. For the next six years, I used various +word processors; no more Tipp-Ex, but still handwritten formulae. +Then I discovered \TeX, and took to it with the inevitability of +a love affair. Is it always so difficult for a love affair to +last? \TeX\ and I have started having problems, and perhaps the +fault isn't all mine. Maybe we should have some counselling. + +\TeX\ fills two roles in the working life of a mathematician, and +early on I fell into the trap of confusing them. On one hand, +it is for producing masterpieces of the typesetter's art; this +was such a delight! For this reason, early on I rejected \LaTeX: +I was unable to make a \LaTeX\ document look good; and while +ordinary mortals can write or edit \TeX\ macros, only superheroes +can mess with \LaTeX\ style files. In plain \TeX, with the help of +invented or adapted macros and a variety of fonts, I made everything +from books, through class exercise sheets, to character sheets for +my son's role-playing games, all stamped with my own design +(for better or worse). + +The other aspect of \TeX\ relevant to mathematics is its function +as a communication standard. Several things contributed to this, +for most of which we have Knuth to thank. Most important is its +free availability on all platforms, and the fact that the input is +ASCII text without control characters, so that it can be sent +by email without damage (even to and from the UK nowadays, although +it wasn't always so!). Gone are the days when international +collaboration involved exchange of letters taking weeks, with the +inevitable crossing of information. I can now exchange drafts of +papers with co-authors almost instantaneously (though, of course, +time differences mean that I usually have to wait a day for a reply +from Australia). + +Another significant fact is that email and \TeX\ +provide a mechanism for communicating formulae in an email letter. +Between \TeX-literate correspondents, such snippets of \TeX\ are +never compiled (except, arguably, in biological computers). + +Besides the two mentioned above, a third factor has contributed to +establishing this standard. Knuth, as a mathematician, designed the +plain macros to be as close as possible to the way that formulae are +pronounced by mathematicians. Thus, \verb|x \over y| produces +$x\over y$. (One of the few exceptions to this is that we have to +say \verb|\bar x| rather than \verb|x \bar| to get $\bar x$.) + +My first encounter with \TeX, before I knew what it was, came about +when an editor sent me a referee's report in uncompiled form. The +dollar signs were a bit mysterious, but if I ignored them, the +rest made quite good sense! + +Regrettably, many popular macro packages have lost sight of this +point, and seem obsessed with the need for all operators to be +prefix. Mathematicians, brought up with the infix and postfix +arithmetic operations, are free from this artificial hang-up, and +never refer to $x\over y$ as \verb|\frac{x}{y}|. (Well, maybe not +quite --- but this is certainly true for formulae simple enough to +be put into a letter.) + +Now there is a clear conflict between these two roles of \TeX. +It was borne in on me when I wanted to send my beautifully-crafted +preprints to other people. At best, I could send along several macro +files, and assume that my correspondents could follow the instructions +for naming and using them and cope with the organisational problem. +At worst, the recipient would lack a font I'd used, and would be +unable to print the document at all. So, inevitably, I was forced +into keeping two copies of each file, a fancy one for myself, and a +plain one for everyone else. This made updating the files a nightmare, +especially when one was at home and the other at work. The next stage +was to abandon the fancy files, and keep everything as plain as +possible! + +These problems, if understandable, were at least self-inflicted. But +it seems to me that the academic/publishing community is now falling +into the same trap. + +It is now very common for publishers to encourage electronic submission +of manuscripts. Among the specialist journals in my field, with one +rogue exception which specifies WordPerfect (stop laughing at the back!), +the system of choice is \LaTeX, with a proprietary style file to +reproduce the existing look of the journal. Some of these style files +are less than perfect. (One publisher, attempting a clever redefinition +of \verb|\emptyset|, ended up leaving this command undefined. Another +insists on printing the journal's copyright message on my preprints.) + +Often, these style files tempt the author with added features, from +the trivial (an \verb|\email| command to print the author's email +address) to the valuable (a \verb|proof| environment for the proofs +of theorems). If you bite the apple, you can no longer compile your +paper in ordinary \LaTeX, and so you can no longer email it to your +collaborators. Yet some of the features are too good to miss, and the +journal makes others compulsory. So, once again, I have to maintain +two copies of my files. + +Further problems are caused by the proliferation of \LaTeX\ versions +and font selection schemes. Rather than stick to the lowest common +denominator, some journals provide elaborate format-switching +mechanisms whose instructions are very difficult to decode. + +Electronic journals pose still more problems. We are told that this +is the way of the future, and that traditional journals will quickly +die out. Yet I am sure that many academics, (and not only in the +Third World), are unable to read or access these journals. We get +busier and busier as time goes on, and installing Mosaic and all the +necessary supporting software on your computer is a non-trivial job. +And on a more mundane level: an otherwise excellent electronic +journal in my field has, as virtually the only style specification, +the use of \verb|cmcsc8| for the headline. This font is not in the +em\TeX\ distribution. Fortunately, the \verb|.tfm| and +\verb|.pk| files for this font were available on our Unix machines, +so I was able to download them and correct the lack. How many +beginning netsurfers would be deterred, by choice or necessity, +by just such a small irritation? + +If publishers do force us into using discordant versions of \TeX\ +by such means, then the role of \TeX\ as the standard for mathematical +communication will be threatened. If this is lost, one of the major +advantages of \TeX\ over other systems will go with it. Can we +save the situation? I do not believe that standards can be established +by wishing for them, even by formalising the wishing into a committee. +The only thing that seems to work is the commercial success of +particular hardware or software. But what could we ask of \LaTeX3 +(or whatever is to be the standard)? +Just two pleas come from the concerns I have raised: +\begin{itemize} +\item It must be possible to impose different styles with the +absolute minimum of change to the input file. This means that +all publishers' requirements must be anticipated and default versions +included in the standard style. Sounds totally impractical? But we +know what happens if you don't! +\item Either all the plain \TeX\ mathematical commands should be +available, or the commands that are actually used should conform as closely +as possible to spoken mathematics. +\end{itemize} + +\end{Article} + \ No newline at end of file -- cgit v1.2.3