texlive

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 22:23 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> <pocallaghan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their
> > papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX.
> 
> Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined
> individuals, it is wrong by, let me say it, an order of magnitude.

You may be right, though I'm not sure by how much. An order of
magnitude would mean only around 10% qualify and I doubt that's the
case. Or maybe you were being as informal as I was ...

> I don't know how many research papers you have read, but the amount
> of crappy MS Word today is real and (educated guess warning) growing.

A quick look at recent preprints in arxiv.org shows e.g. in maths
virtually every paper appears to be in TeX/LaTeX, similarly in physics.
Of course that's a judgment call based on appearance (such as the fonts
used and whether formulae are properly typeset) since most papers don't
say what system they were written in. Certainly the active research
mathematicians I know write exclusively in LaTeX, but I've been out of
the game for some years now.

> In your defense, most **good** STEM papers today are written using
> proper document markup languages and compiled into high quality
> files.

We can agree on that.

poc