Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu!kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob From: rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) Newsgroups: comp.dsp Subject: Re: DSP textbook Summary: Readability measures... Message-ID: <3141@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> Date: 29 Sep 89 00:26:28 GMT References:<1989Sep25.185626.21313@utzoo.uucp> Sender: news@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu Lines: 22 In article <1989Sep25.185626.21313@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Actually, I suggest we drop this entire line of debate, because it misses > the most important point. I entirely agree. I went along with the ``common environment'' argument originally because an environment that is familiar to most people will have a distinct edge in effective readability. Unfortunately, the discussion seems to be going towards laser printing articles and other rare events (:-) I'm unfamiliar with Mathematica (did I get that name right from memory?) and so far nobody has shown any, but between eqn and LaTeX, I don't think there's much difference in readability -- at least, I'd be perfectly happy with either. (BTW you read my LaTeX right, assuming I read your eqn right :-). I don't think straight ASCII is the answer, it quickly gets *less* legible than an eqn or LaTeX or Mathematica-type notation. There wouldn't be any public domain eqn -> LaTeX and/or vv converter, would there now? That way we could keep the followers of both religions happy... SR