diff options
author | Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> | 2019-02-22 20:29:46 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Context Git Mirror Bot <phg@phi-gamma.net> | 2019-02-22 20:29:46 +0100 |
commit | 7b271baae19db1528fbe6621bdf50af89a5a336b (patch) | |
tree | 4fc24a8f2be20aa90e90f6e1bcb62d69f4946235 /doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-perception.tex | |
parent | 67b9965fe473d18f13ed4c40f1e4e008eb870322 (diff) | |
download | context-7b271baae19db1528fbe6621bdf50af89a5a336b.tar.gz |
2019-02-22 19:43:00
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-perception.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-perception.tex | 180 |
1 files changed, 180 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-perception.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-perception.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..993604473 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-perception.tex @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@ +% language=uk + +\definefontfeature[ligatures][liga=yes,mode=node] + +\startcomponent musings-perception + +\environment musings-style + +\startchapter[title=Advertising \TEX] + +I can get upset when I hear \TEX ies boast about the virtues of \TEX\ compared to +for instance Microsoft Word. Not that I feel responsible for defending a program +that I never use(d) but attacking something for no good reason makes not much +sense to me. It is especially annoying when the attack is accompanied by a +presentation that looks pretty bad in design and typography. The best +advertisements for \TEX\ should of course come from outside the \TEX\ community, +by people impressed by its capabilities. How many \TEX ies can really claim that +Word is bad when they never tried to make something in it with a similar learning +curve as they had in \TEX\ or the same amount of energy spent in editing and +perfecting a word|-|processor|-|made document. + +In movies where computer technology plays a role one can encounter weird +assumptions about what computers and programs can do. Run into a server room, +pull one disk out of a \RAID-5 array and get all information from it. Connect +some magic device to a usb port of a phone and copy all data from it in seconds. +Run a high speed picture or fingerprint scan on a computer (probably on a remote +machine) and show all pictures flying by. Okay, it's not so far from other +unrealistic aspects in movies, like talking animals, so maybe it is just a +metaphor for complexity and speed. When zapping channels on my television I saw +\in{figure}[fig:tex-in-movie] and as the media box permits replay I could make a +picture. I have no clue what the movie was about or what movie it was so a +reference is lacking here. Anyway it's interesting that seeing a lot of \TEX\ +code flying by can impress someone: the viewer, even if no \TEX ie will ever see +that on the console unless in some error or tracing message and even then it's +hard to get that amount. So, the viewer will never realize that what is seen is +definitely not what a \TEX ie wants to see. + +\startplacefigure[title={\TEX\ in a movie},reference=fig:tex-in-movie] + \externalfigure[tex-in-movie.jpg][height=8cm] +\stopplacefigure + +So, as that kind of free advertisement doesn't promote \TEX\ well, what of an +occasional mentioning of \TEX\ in highly|-|regarded literature? When reading +\quotation {From bacteria to Bach and back, the evolution of minds} by Daniel +Dennett I ran into the following: + +\startquotation +In Microsoft Word, for instance, there are the typographical operations of +superscript and subscript, as illustrated by + +\startnarrower +base\high{power} +\stopnarrower + +and + +\startnarrower +human\low{female} +\stopnarrower + +But try to add another superscript to base\high{power}\emdash it {\em should} +work, but it doesn't! In mathematics, you can raise powers to powers to powers +forever, but you can't get Microsoft Word to display these (there are other +text|-|editing systems, such as TeX, that can). Now, are we sure that human +languages make use of true recursion, or might some or all of them be more like +Microsoft Word? Might our interpretation of grammars as recursive be rather an +elegant mathematical idealization of the actual \quotation {moving parts} of a +grammar? +\stopquotation + +Now, that book is a wonderfully interesting read and the author often refers to +other sources. When one reads some reference (with a quote) then one assumes that +what one reads is correct, and I have no reason to doubt Dennett in this. But +this remark about \TEX\ has some curious inaccuracies. \footnote {Of course one +can wonder in general that when one encounters such an inaccuracy, how valid +other examples and conclusions are. However, consistency in arguments and +confirmation by other sources can help to counter this.} + +First of all a textual raise or lower is normally not meant to be recursive. +Nesting would have interesting consequences for the interline space so one will +avoid it whenever possible. There are fonts that have superscript and subscript +glyphs and even \UNICODE\ has slots for a bunch of characters. I'm not sure what +Word does: take the special glyph or use a scaled down copy? + +Then there is the reference to \TEX\ where we can accept that the \quotation {E} +is not lowered but just kept as a regular \quotation {e}. Actually the mentioning +of nested scripts refers to typesetting math and that's what the superscripts and +subscripts are for in \TEX. In math mode however, one will normally raise or +lower symbols and numbers, not words: that happens in text mode. + +While Word will use the regular text font when scripting in text mode, a \TEX\ +user will either have to use a macro to make sure that the right size (and font) +is used, or one can revert to math mode. But how to explain that one has to enter +math and then explicitly choose the right font? Think of this: + +\startbuffer +efficient\high{efficient} or +efficient$^{\text{efficient}}$ or \par +{\bf efficient\high{efficient} or +efficient$^{\text{efficient}}$} +\stopbuffer + +\typebuffer + +Which gives (in Cambria) + +\getbuffer + +Now this, + +\startbuffer +efficient\high{efficient\high{efficient}} or +efficient$^{\text{efficient$^{\text{efficient}}$}}$ or \par +{\bf efficient\high{efficient\high{efficient}} or +efficient$^{\text{efficient$^{\text{efficient}}$}}$} +\stopbuffer + +\typebuffer + +will work okay but the math variant is probably quite frightening at a glance for +an average Word user (or beginner in \TEX) and I can understand why someone would +rather stick to click and point. + +\getbuffer + +Oh, and it's tempting to try the following: + +\startbuffer +efficient{\addff{f:superiors}efficient} +\stopbuffer + +\typebuffer + +but that only works with fonts that have such a feature, like Cambria: + +\blank {\switchtobodyfont[cambria]\getbuffer} \blank + +To come back to Dennett's remark: when typesetting math in Word, one just has to +switch to the math editing mode and one can have nested scripts! And, when using +\TEX\ one should not use math mode for text scripts. So in the end in both +systems one has to know what one is doing, and both systems are equally capable. + +The recursion example is needed in order to explain how (following recent ideas +from Chomsky) for modern humans some recursive mechanism is needed in our +wetware. Now, I won't go into details about that (as I can only mess up an +excellent explanation) but if you want to refer to \TEX\ in some way, then +expansion \footnote{Expanding macros actually works well with tail recursion.} of +(either combined or not) snippets of knowledge might be a more interesting model +than recursion, because much of what \TEX\ is capable of relates to expansion. +But I leave that to others to explore. \footnote {One quickly starts thinking of +how \cs {expandafter}, \type {noexpand}, \type {unexpanded}, \type {protected} +and other primitives can be applied to language, understanding and also +misunderstanding.} + +Now, comparing \TEX\ to Word is always kind of tricky: Word is a text editor with +typesetting capabilities and \TEX\ is a typesetting engine with programming +capabilities. Recursion is not really that relevant in this perspective. Endless +recursion in scripts makes little sense and even \TEX\ has its limits there: the +\TEX\ math engine only distinguishes three levels (text, script and scriptscript) +and sometimes I'd like to have a level more. Deeper nesting is just more of +scriptscript unless one explicitly enforces some style. So, it's recursive in the +sense that there can be many levels, but it also sort of freezes at level three. + +\startplacefigure[title={Nicer than \TEX},reference=fig:nicer-than-tex] + \externalfigure[mathematics.png][width=\textwidth] +\stopplacefigure + +I love \TEX\ and I like what you can do with it and it keeps surprising me. And +although mathematics is part of that, I seldom have to typeset math myself. So, I +can't help that \in {figure} [fig:nicer-than-tex] impresses me more. It even has +the so|-|familiar|-|to|-|\TEX ies dollar symbols in it: the poem \quotation +{Poetry versus Orchestra} written by Hollie McNish, music composed by Jules +Buckley and artwork by Martin Pyper (I have the \DVD\ but you can also find it on +\YOUTUBE). It reminds me of Don Knuth's talk at a \TUG\ meeting. In \TUGBOAT\ +31:2 (2010) you can read Don's announcement of his new typesetting engine i\TEX: +\quotation {Output can be automatically formatted for lasercutters, embroidery +machines, \THREED\ printers, milling machines, and other \CNC\ devices \unknown}. +Now that is something that Word can't do! + +\stopcomponent |