diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings')
11 files changed, 3177 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b814675bb --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex @@ -0,0 +1,1253 @@ +% language=uk + +% naming-nature.jog + +\startcomponent musings-children + +\environment musings-style + +\definedescription + [presomething] + [headstyle=\bold, + alternative=hanging, + width=fit, + hang=1] + +\startchapter[title={Children of \TEX}] + +\startsection[title={The theme}] + +Nearly always \TEX\ conferences carry a theme. As there have been many +conferences the organizers have run out of themes involving fonts, macros and +typesetting and are now cooking up more fuzzy ones. Take the Bacho\TUG\ 2017 +theme: + +\startnarrower[left,8*right] \startpacked +\startpresomething {Premises} + The starting point, what we have, what do we use, what has been achieved? +\stoppresomething +\startpresomething {Predilections} + How do we act now, how do we want to act, what is important to us and what do + we miss? +\stoppresomething +\startpresomething {Predictions} + What is the future of \TEX, what we'd like to achieve and can we influence + it? +\stoppresomething +\stoppacked \stopnarrower + +My first impression with these three P words was: what do they mean? Followed by +the thought: this is no longer a place to take kids to. But the Internet gives +access to the Cambridge Dictionary, so instead of running to the dusty meter of +dictionaries somewhere else in my place, I made sure that I googled the most +recent definitions: + +\startnarrower[left] \startpacked +\startpresomething {premise} + an idea or theory on which a statement or action is based +\stoppresomething +\startpresomething {predilection} + if someone has a predilection for something, they like it a lot +\stoppresomething +\startpresomething {prediction} + a statement about what you think will happen in the future +\stoppresomething +\stoppacked \stopnarrower + +I won't try to relate these two sets of definitions but several words stand out +in the second set: idea, theory, action, like, statement and future. Now, as a +preparation for the usual sobering thoughts that Jerzy, Volker and I have when we +staring into a Bacho\TEX\ campfire I decided to wrap up some ideas around these +themes and words. The books that I will mention are just a selection of what you +can find distributed around my place. This is not some systematic research but +just the result of a few weeks making a couple of notes while pondering about +this conference. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Introduction] + +One cannot write the amount of \TEX\ macros that I've written without also liking +books. If you look at my bookshelves the topics are somewhat spread over the +possible spectrum of topics: history, biology, astronomy, paleontology, general +science but surprisingly little math. There are a bunch of typography|-|related +books but only some have been read: it's the visuals that matter most and as +there are no real developments I haven't bought new ones in over a decade, +although I do buy books that look nice for our office display but the content +should be interesting too. Of course I do have a couple of books about computer +(related) science and technology but only a few are worth a second look. +Sometimes I bought computer books expecting to use them (in some project) but I +must admit that most have not been read and many will soon end up in the paper +bin (some already went that way). I'll make an exception for Knuth, Wirth and a +few other fundamental ones that I (want to) read. And, I need to catch up on deep +learning, so that might need a book. + +My colleagues and I have many discussions, especially about what we read, and +after a few decades one starts seeing patterns. Therefore the last few years it +was a pleasant surprise for me to run into books and lectures that nicely +summarize what one has noticed and discussed in a consistent way. My memory is +not that good, but good enough to let some bells ring. + +\startplacefigure[location=top] + \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] + {\externalfigure[covers/sapiens.jpg] [height=5cm]} {history} + {\externalfigure[covers/homo-deus.jpg] [height=5cm]} {futurology} + {\externalfigure[covers/children-of-time.jpg] [height=5cm]} {science fiction} + {\externalfigure[covers/superintelligence.jpg][height=5cm]} {informatics} + \stopcombination +\stopplacefigure + +The first book that gave me this \quotation {finally a perfect summary of +historic developments} feeling is \quotation{Sapiens} by Yuval Noah Harari. The +author summarizes human history from a broad perspective where modern views on +psychology, anthropology and technical developments are integrated. It's a follow +up on a history writing trend started by Jared Diamond. The follow up \quotation +{Homo Deus} looks ahead and is just as well written. It also integrates ideas +from other fields, for instance those related to development of artificial +intelligence (Dennett, Bostrom, etc.). + +Another inspiration for this talk and article is the 50 hour lecture series on +behavioral biology by Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University, brought to my +attention by my nephew Bram who visited a few \TEX\ conferences with me and who +is now also forced to use \TEX\ for assignments and reports. (How come +self|-|published books used at universities often look so bad?) + +The title of this talk is inspired by the book \quotation {Children of Time} by +Adrian Tchaikovsky that I read recently. There are science fiction writers who +focus on long term science and technology, such as some of Alastair Reynolds, +while others follow up on recent development in all kind of sciences. One can +recognize aspects of \quotation {Superintelligence} by Bostrom in Neal Asher's +books, insights in psychology in the older Greg Bear books, while in the +mentioned \quotation {Children of Time} (socio)biological insights dominate. The +main thread in that book is the development of intelligence, social behaviour, +language, script and cooperation in a species quite different from us: spiders. +It definitely avoids the anthropocentric focus that we normally have. + +So how does this relate to the themes of the Bacho\TEX\ conference? I will pick +out some ways to approach them using ideas from the kind of resources mentioned +above. I could probably go on and on for pages because once you start relating +what you read and hear to this \TEX\ ecosystem and community, there is no end. +So, consider this a snapshot, that somehow relates to the themes: + +\startnarrower[left,8*right] \startpacked +\startpresomething {premise} + Let's look at what the live sciences have to say about \TEX\ and friends and + let's hope that I don't offend the reader and the field. +\stoppresomething +\startpresomething {predilection} + Let's figure out what brings us here to this place deeply hidden in the woods, + a secret gathering of the \TEX\ sect. +\stoppresomething +\startpresomething {prediction} + Let's see if the brains present here can predict the future because after + all, according to Dennett, that is what brains are for. +\stoppresomething +\stoppacked \stopnarrower + +At school I was already intrigued by patterns in history: a cyclic, spiral and +sinusoid social evolution instead of a pure linear sequence of events. It became +my first typeset|-|by|-|typewriter document: Is history an exact science? Next I +will use and abuse patterns and ideas to describe the \TEX\ world, not wearing a +layman's mathematical glasses, but more from the perspective of live sciences, +where chaos dominates. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={The larger picture}] + +History of mankind can be roughly summarized as follows. For a really long time +we were hunters but at some point (10K years ago) became farmers. As a result we +could live in larger groups and still feed them. The growing complexity of +society triggered rules and religion as instruments for stability and +organization (I use the term religion in its broadest sense here). For quite a +while cultures came and went, and climate changes are among the reasons. + +After the industrial revolution new religions were invented (social, economic and +national liberalism) and we're now getting dataism (search for Harari on youtube +for a better summary). Some pretty great minds seem to agree that we're heading +to a time when humans as we are will be outdated. Massive automation, interaction +between the self and computer driven ecosystems, lack of jobs and purpose, +messing around with our genome. Some countries and cultures still have to catch +up on the industrial revolution, if they manage at all, and maybe we ourselves +will be just as behind reality soon. Just ask yourself: did you manage to catch +up? Is \TEX\ a stone age tool or a revolutionary turning point? + +A few decades ago a trip to Bacho\TEX\ took more than a day. Now you drive there +in just over half a day. There was a time that it took weeks: preparation, +changing horses, avoiding bad roads. Not only your own man|-|hours were involved. +It became easier later (my first trip took only 24 hours) and recently it turned +into a piece of cake: you don't pick up maps but start your device; you don't +need a travel agent but use the Internet; there are no border patrols, you can +just drive on. (Okay, maybe some day soon border patrols at the Polish border +show up again, just like road tax police in Germany, but that might be a +temporary glitch.) + +Life gets easier and jobs get lost. Taxi and truck drivers, travel agents, and +cashiers become as obsolete as agricultural workers before. Next in line are +doctors, lawyers, typesetters, printers, and all those who think they're safe. +Well, how many people were needed 400 years ago to produce the proceedings of a +conference like this in a few days' time span? Why read the introduction of a +book or a review when you can just listen to the author's summary on the web? How +many conferences still make proceedings (or go for videos instead), will we +actually need editors and typesetters in the future? How much easier has it +become to design a font, including variants? What stories can designers tell in +the future when programs do the lot? The narrower your speciality is, the worse +are your changes; hopefully the people present at this conference operate on a +broader spectrum. It's a snapshot. I will show some book covers as reference but +am aware that years ago or ahead the selection could have been different. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Words] + +Words (whatever they represent) found a perfect spot to survive: our minds. Then +they made it from speech (and imagination) into writing: carved in stone, wood, +lead. At some point they managed to travel over wires but no matter what +happened, they are still around. Typesetting as visualization is also still +surrounding us so that might give us a starting point for ensuring a future for +\TEX\ to work on, because \TEX\ is all about words. There is a lot we don't see; +imagine if our eyes had microscopic qualities. What if we could hear beyond +20KHz. Imagine we could see infrared. How is that with words. What tools, similar +in impact as \TEX, can evolve once we figure that out. What if we get access to +the areas of our brain that hold information? We went from print to screen and +\TEX\ could cope with that. Can it cope with what comes next? + +The first printing press replaced literal copying by hand. Later we got these +linotype|-|like machines but apart from a few left, these are already thrown out +of windows (as we saw in a movie a few Bacho\TeX's ago). Photo|-|typesetting has +been replaced too and because a traditional centuries old printing press is a +nice to see item, these probably ring more bells than that gray metal closed box +typesetters. Organizers of \TEX\ conferences love to bring the audience to old +printing workshops and museums. At some point computers got used for typesetting +and in that arena \TEX\ found its place. These gray closed boxes are way less +interesting than something mechanical that at least invites us to touch it. How +excited can one be about a stack of \TEX\,Live \DVD{}s? + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Remembering] + +Two times I visited the part of the science museum in London with young family +members: distracted by constantly swiping their small powerful devices, they +didn't have the least interest in the exhibited computer related items, let alone +the fact that the couch they were sitting on was a Cray mainframe. Later on, +climbing on some old monument or an old cannon seemed more fun. So, in a few +decades folks will still look at wooden printing presses but quickly walk through +the part of an exhibition where the tools that we use are shown. We need to find +ways to look interesting. But don't think we're unique: how many kids find +graphical trend|-|setting games like Myst and Riven still interesting? On the +other hand a couple of month ago a bunch of nieces and nephews had a lot of fun +with an old Atari console running low|-|res bitmap games. Maybe there is hope for +good old \TEX. + +If indeed we're heading to a radically different society one can argue if this +whole discussion makes sense. When the steam engine showed up, the metaphor for +what went on in our heads was that technology, It's a popular example of speakers +on this topic: \quotation {venting off steam}. When electricity and radio came +around metaphors like \quotation {being on the same wavelength} showed up. A few +decades ago the computer replaced that model although in the meantime the model +is more neurobiological: we're a hormone and neurotransmitter driven computer. We +don't have memory the way computers do. + +How relevant will page breaks, paragraph and line breaks be in the future? Just +like \quotation {venting off steam} may make no sense to the youth, asking a +typesetter to \quotation {give me a break} might not make much sense soon. +However, when discussing automated typesetting the question \quotation {are we on +the same page} still has relevance. + +Typesetting with a computer might seem like the ultimate solution but it's +actually rather dumb when we consider truly intelligent systems. On the large +scale of history and developments what we do might get quite unnoticed. Say that +mankind survives the next few hundred years one way or the other. Science fiction +novels by Jack McDevitt have an interesting perspective of rather normal humans +millennia ahead of us who look back on these times in the same way as we look +back now. Nothing fundamental changed in the way we run society. Nearly nothing +from the past is left over and apart from being ruled by \AI{}s people still do +sort of what they do now. \TEX ? What is that? Well, there once was this great +computer scientist Knuth (in the remembered row of names like Aristotle |<|I just +started reading \quotation {The Lagoon} by Armand Leroi|>| Newton, Einstein, his +will show up) who had a group of followers that used a program that he seems to +have written. And even that is unlikely to be remembered, unless maybe user +groups manage to organize an archive and pass that on. Maybe the fact that \TEX\ +was one of the first large scale open source programs, of which someone can study +the history, makes it a survivor. The first program that was properly documented +in detail! But then we need to make sure that it gets known and persists. + +\startsection[title=Automation] + +In a recent interview Daniel Dennett explains that his view of the mind as a big +neural network, one that can be simulated in software on silicon, is a bit too +simplistic. He wonders if we shouldn't more tend to think of a network of +(selfish) neurons that group together in tasks and then compete with each other, +if only because they want to have something to do. + +Maybe attempts to catch the creative mindset and working of a typesetter in +algorithms is futile. What actually is great typography or good typesetting? +Recently I took a look at my bookshelf wondering what to get rid of \emdash\ +better do that now than when I'm too old to carry the crap down (crap being +defined as uninteresting content or bad looking). I was surprised about the +on|-|the|-|average bad quality of the typesetting and print. It's also not really +getting better. One just gets accustomed to what is the norm at a certain point. +Whenever they change the layout and look and feel of the newspaper I read the +arguments are readability and ease of access. Well, I never had such a hard time +reading my paper as today (with my old eyes). + +Are we, like Dennett, willing to discard old views on our tools and models? When +my first computer was a \RCA\ 1802 based kit, that had 256 bytes of memory. My +current laptop (from 2013) is a Dell Precision workstation with an extreme quad +core processor and 16 GB of memory and ssd storage. Before I arrived there I +worked with \DECTEN, \VAX\ and the whole range of Intel \CPU{}s. So if you really +want to compare a brain with a computer, take your choice. + +I started with \TEX\ on a 4 MHz desk top with 640 MB memory and a 10 MB hard +disk. Running \CONTEXT\ \MKIV\ with \LUATEX\ on such a machine is no option at +all, but I still carry the burden of trying to write efficient code (which is +still somewhat reflected in the code that makes up \CONTEXT). In the decades that +we have been using \TEX\ we had to adapt! Demands changed, possibilities changed, +technologies changed. And they keep changing. How many successive changes can a +\TEX\ user handle? Sometimes, when I look and listen I wonder. + +\startplacefigure[location=top] + \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] + {\externalfigure[covers/the-mind-in-the-cave.jpg] [height=5cm]} {paleontology} + {\externalfigure[covers/the-ancestors-tale.jpg] [height=5cm]} {evolutionary biology} + {\externalfigure[covers/the-good-book-of-human-nature.jpg][height=5cm]} {anthropology} + {\externalfigure[covers/chaos-and-harmony.jpg] [height=5cm]} {physics} + \stopcombination +\stopplacefigure + +If you look back, that is, if you read about the tens of thousands of years that +it took humans to evolve (\quotation {The mind in the cave} by Lewis|-|Williams +is a good exercise) you realize even more in what a fast|-|paced time we live and +that we're witnessing transitions of another magnitude. + +In the evolution of species some tools were invented multiple times, like eyes. +You see the same in our \TEX\ world: multiple (sub)macro packages, different font +technologies, the same solutions but with an alternative approach. Some +disappear, some stay around. Just like different circumstances demand different +solutions in nature, so do different situations in typesetting, for instance +different table rendering solutions. Sometime I get the feeling that we focus too +much on getting rid of all but one solution while more natural would be to accept +diversity, like bio|-|diversity is accepted. Transitions nowadays happen faster +but the question is if, like aeons before, we (have to) let them fade away. When +evolution is discussed the terms \quote {random}, \quote {selection}, \quote +{fit}, and so on are used. This probably also applies to typography: at some +point a font can be used a lot, but in the end the best readable and most +attractive one will survive. Newspapers are printed in many copies, but rare +beautiful books hold value. Of course, just like in nature some developments +force the further path of development, we don't suddenly grow more legs or digits +on our hands. The same happens with \TEX\ on a smaller timescale: successors +still have the same core technology, also because if we'd drop it, it would be +something different and then give a reason to reconsider using such technology +(which likely would result in going by another path). + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Quality] + +Richard Dawkins \quotation {The Ancestor's Tale} is a non|-|stop read. In a +discussion with Jared Diamond about religion and evolution they ponder this +thread: you holding the hand of your mother who is handing her mother's hand and +so on till at some point fish get into the picture. The question then is, when do +we start calling something human? And a related question is, when does what we +call morality creeps in? Is 50\% neanderthaler human or not? + +So, in the history of putting thoughts on paper: where does \TEX\ fit in? When do +we start calling something automated typesetting? When do we decide that we have +quality? Is \TEX\ so much different from its predecessors? And when we see +aspects of \TEX\ (or related font technology) in more modern programs, do we see +points where we cross qualitative or other boundaries? Is a program doing a +better job than a human? Where do we stand? There are fields where there is no +doubt that machines outperform humans. It's probably a bit more difficult in +aesthetic fields except perhaps when we lower the conditions and expectations +(something that happens a lot). + +For sure \TEX\ will become obsolete, maybe even faster that we think, but so will +other typesetting technologies. Just look back and have no illusions. Till then +we can have our fun and eventually, when we have more free time than we need, we +might use it out of hobbyism. Maybe \TEX\ will be remembered by probably its most +important side effect: the first large scale open source, the time when users met +over programs, Knuth's disciples gathered in user groups, etc. The tools that we +use are just a step in an evolution. And, as with evolution, most branches are +pruned. So, when in the far future one looks back, will they even notice \TEX ? +The ancestor's tail turns the tree upside down: at the end of the successful +branch one doesn't see the dead ends. + +Just a thought: \CD{}s and media servers are recently being replaced (or at least +accompanied) by Long Play records. In the shop where I buy my \CD{}s the space +allocated to records grows at the cost of more modern media. So, maybe at some +point retro|-|typesetting will pop up. Of course it might skip \TEX\ and end up +at woodcutting or printing with lead. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=What mission] + +We rely on search engines instead of asking around or browsing libraries. Do +students really still read books and manuals or do they just search and listen to +lectures. Harari claims that instead of teaching kids facts in school we should +just take for granted that they can get all the data they want and that we should +learn them how to deal with data and adapt to what is coming. We take for granted +that small devices with human voices show us the route to drive to Bacho\TEX, for +instance, although by now I can drive it without help. In fact, kids can surprise +you by asking if we're driving in Germany when we are already in Poland. + +We accept that computer programs help physicians in analyzing pictures. Some wear +watches that warn them about health issues, and I know a few people who monitor +their sugar levels electronically instead of relying on their own measurements. +We seem to believe and trust the programs. And indeed, we also believe that \TEX\ +does the job in the best way possible. How many people really understand the way +\TEX\ works? + +We still have mailing lists where we help each other. There are also wikis and +forums like stack exchange. But who says that even a moderate bit of artificial +intelligence doesn't answer questions better. Of course there needs to be input +(manuals, previous answers, etc.) but just like we need fewer people as workforce +soon, the number of experts needed also can be smaller. And we're still talking +about a traditional system like \TEX. Maybe the social experience that we have on +these media will survive somehow, although: how many people are members of +societies, participate in demonstrations, meet weekly in places where ideas get +exchanged, compared to a few decades ago? That being said, I love to watch posts +with beautiful \CONTEXT\ solutions or listen to talks by enthusiastic users who +do things I hadn't expected. I really hope that this property survives, just like +I hope that we will be able to see the difference between a real user's response +and one from an intelligent machine (an unrealistic hope I fear). Satisfaction +wins and just like our neurological subsystems at some point permanently adapt to +thresholds (given that you trigger things often enough), we get accustomed to +what \TEX\ provides and so we stick to it. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={Intelligence versus consciousness}] + +Much of what we do is automated. You don't need to think of which leg to move and +what foot to put down when you walk. Reacting to danger also to a large extent is +automated. It doesn't help much to start thinking about how dangerous a lion can +be when it's coming after you, you'd better move fast. Our limbic system is +responsible for such automated behaviour, for instance driven by emotions. The +more difficult tasks and thoughts about them happen in the frontal cortex (sort +of). + +\startplacefigure[location=top] + \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] + {\externalfigure[covers/death-by-black-hole.jpg] [height=5cm]} {astronomy} + {\externalfigure[covers/the-formula.jpg] [height=5cm]} {informatics} + {\externalfigure[covers/hals-legacy.jpg] [height=5cm]} {future science} + {\externalfigure[covers/lucky-planet.jpg] [height=5cm]} {earth science} + \stopcombination +\stopplacefigure + +For most users \TEX\ is like the limbic system: there is not much thinking +involved, and the easy solutions are the ones used. Just like hitting a nerve +triggers a chain of reactions, hitting a key eventually produces a typeset +document. Often this is best because the job needs to get done and no one really +cares how it looks; just copy a preamble, key in the text and assume that it +works out well (enough). It is tempting to compare \TEX's penalties, badness and +other parameters with levels of hormones and neurotransmitters. Their function +depends on where they get used and the impact can be accumulated, blocked or +absent. It's all magic, especially when things interact. + +Existing \TEX\ users, developers and user groups of course prefer to think +otherwise, that it is a positive choice by free will. That new users have looked +around and arrived at \TEX\ for good reason: their frontal cortex steering a +deliberate choice. Well, it might have played a role but the decision to use +\TEX\ might in the end be due to survival skills: I want to pass this exam and +therefore I will use that weird system called \TEX. + +All animals, us included, have some level of intelligence but also have this hard +to describe property that we think makes us what we are. Intelligence and +consciousness are not the same (at least we know a bit about the first but nearly +nothing about the second). We can argue about how well composed some music is but +why we like it is a different matter. + +We can make a well thought out choice for using \TEX\ for certain tasks but can +we say why we started liking it (or not)? Why it gives us pleasure or maybe +grief? Has it become a drug that we got addicted to? So, one can make an +intelligent decision about using \TEX\ but getting a grip on why we like it can +be hard. Do we enjoy the first time struggle? Probably not. Do we like the folks +involved? Yes, Don Knuth is a special and very nice person. Can we find help and +run into a friendly community? Yes, and a unique one too, annoying at times, +often stimulating and on the average friendly for all the odd cases running +around. + +Artificial intelligence is pretty ambitious, so speaking of machine intelligence +is probably better. Is \TEX\ an intelligent program? There is definitely some +intelligence built in and the designer of that program is for sure very +intelligent. The designer is also a conscious entity: he likes what he did and +finds pleasure in using it. The program on the other hand is just doing its job: +it doesn't care how it's done and how long it takes: a mindless entity. So here +is a question: do we really want a more intelligent program doing the job for us, +or do those who attend conferences like Bacho\TEX\ enjoy \TEX ing so much that +they happily stay with what they have now? Compared to rockets tumbling down +and|/|or exploding or Mars landers thrashing themselves due to programming errors +of interactions, \TEX\ is surprisingly stable and bug free. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={Individual versus group evolution}] + +After listening for hours to Sapolsky you start getting accustomed to remarks +about (unconscious) behaviour driven by genes, expression and environment, aimed +at \quotation {spreading many copies of your genes}. In most cases that is an +individual's driving force. However, cooperation between individuals plays a role +in this. A possible view is that we have now reached a state where survival is +more dependent on a group than on an individual. This makes sense when we +consider that developments (around us) can go way faster than regular evolution +(adaptation) can handle. We take control over evolution, a mechanism that needs +time to adapt and time is something we don't give it anymore. + +Why does \TEX\ stay around? It started with an individual but eventually it's the +groups that keeps it going. A too|-|small group won't work but too|-|large groups +won't work either. It's a known fact that one can only handle some 150 social +contacts: we evolved in small bands that split when they became too large. Larger +groups demanded abstract beliefs and systems to deal with the numbers: housing, +food production, protection. The \TEX\ user groups also provide some +organization: they organize meetings, somehow keep development going and provide +infrastructure and distributions. They are organized around languages. According +to Diamond new languages are still discovered but many go extinct too. So the +potential for language related user groups is not really growing. + +Some of the problems that we face in this world have become too large to be dealt +with by individuals and nations. In spite of what anti|-|globalists want we +cannot deal with our energy hunger, environmental issues, lack of natural +resources, upcoming technologies without global cooperation. We currently see a +regression in cooperation by nationalistic movements, protectionism and the usual +going back to presumed better times, but that won't work. + +Local user groups are important but the number of members is not growing. There +is some cooperation between groups but eventually we might need to combine the +groups into one which might succeed unless one wants to come first. Of course we +will get the same sentiments and arguments as in regular politics but on the +other hand, we already have the advantage of \TEX\ systems being multi|-|lingual +and users sharing interest in the diversity of usage and users. The biggest +challenge is to pass on what we have achieved. We're just a momentary highlight +and let's not try to embrace some \quotation {\TEX\ first} madness. + +\stopsection + +\startplacefigure[location=top] + \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] + {\externalfigure[covers/3-16.jpg] [height=5cm]} {art} + % {\externalfigure[covers/dirt.jpg] [height=5cm]} {history} + {\externalfigure[covers/the-winds-of-change.jpg] [height=5cm]} {history} + {\externalfigure[covers/pale-blue-dot.jpg] [height=5cm]} {astronomy} + {\externalfigure[covers/the-third-chimpanzee.jpg][height=5cm]} {history} + \stopcombination +\stopplacefigure + +\startsection[title=Sexes] + +Most species have two sexes but it is actually a continuum controlled by hormones +and genetic expression: we just have to accept it. Although the situation has +improved there are plenty of places where some gender relationships are +considered bad even to the extent that one's life can be in danger. Actually +having strong ideas about these issues is typically human. But in the end one has +to accept the continuum. + +In a similar way we just have to accept that \TEX\ usage, application of \TEX\ +engines, etc.\ is a continuum and not a batch versus \WYSIWYG\ battle any more. +It's disturbing to read strong recommendations not to use this or that. Of the +many macro packages that showed up only a few were able to survive. How do users +of outlines look at bitmaps, how do \DVI\ lovers look at \PDF. But, as +typesetting relates to esthetics, strong opinions come with the game. + +Sapolsky reports about a group of baboons where due to the fact that they get the +first choice of food the alpha males of pack got poisoned, so that the remaining +suppressed males who treated the females well became dominant. In fact they can +then make sure that no new alpha male from outside joins the pack without +behaving like they do. A sort of social selection. In a similar fashion, until +now the gatherings of \TEX ies managed to keep its social properties and has not +been dominated by for instance commerce. + +% So, maybe should focus on acceptance and tolerance and then make sure that that +% we keep what we have and let it not be influenced too much by sectarianism. It +% makes a nice topic for a meeting of the context (sub)group, that actually has a +% women as driving force. How can we preserve what we have but still proceed is a +% legitimate question. Where do we stand in the landscape. + +In the animal world often sexes relate to appearance. The word sexy made it to +other domains as well. Is \TEX\ sexy? For some it is. We often don't see the real +colors of birds. What looks gray to us looks vivid to a bird which sees in a +different spectrum. The same is true for \TEX. Some users see a command line +(shell) and think: this is great! Others just see characters and keystrokes and +are more attracted to an interactive program. When I see a graphic made by +\METAPOST, I always note how exact it is. Others don't care if their interactive +effort doesn't connect the dots well. Some people (also present here) think that +we should make \TEX\ attractive but keep in mind that like and dislike are not +fixed human properties. Some mindsets might as well be the result from our +makeup, others can be driven by culture. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Religion] + +One of Sapolsky's lectures is about religion and it comes in the sequence of +mental variations including depression and schizophrenia, because all these +relate to mental states, emotions, thresholds and such (all things human). That +makes it a tricky topic which is why it has not been taped. As I was raised in a +moderate Protestant tradition I can imagine that it's an uncomfortable topic +instead. But there are actually a few years older videos around and they are +interesting to watch and not as threatening as some might expect. Here I just +stick to some common characteristics. + +If you separate the functions that religions play into for instance explanation +of the yet unknown, social interactions, control of power and regulation of +morals, then it's clear why at \TEX\ user group meetings the religious aspect of +\TEX\ has been discussed in talks. Those who see programs as infallible and +always right and don't understand the inner working can see it as an almighty +entity. In the Netherlands church-going diminishes but it looks like alternative +meetings are replacing it (and I'm not talking of football matches). So what are +our \TEX\ meetings? What do we believe in? The reason that I bring up this aspect +is that in the \TEX\ community we can find aspects of the more extremist aspects +of religions: if you don't use the macro package that I use, you're wrong. If you +don't use the same operating system as I do, you're evil. You will be punished if +you use the wrong editor for \TEX ? Why don't you use this library (which, by the +way, just replaced that other one)? We create angels and daemons. Even for quite +convinced atheists (it's not hard to run into them on youtube) a religion only +survives when it has benefits, something that puzzles them. So when we're +religious about \TEX\ and friends we have to make sure that it's at least +beneficial. Also, maybe we fall in Dennett's category of \quotation {believers +who want to believe}: it helps us to do our job if we just believe that we have +the perfect tool. Religion has inspired visual and aural art and keeps doing +that. (Don Knuth's current musical composition project is a good example of +this.) + +Scientists can be religious, in flexible ways too, which is demonstrated by Don +Knuth. In fact, I'm pretty sure \TEX\ would not be in the position it is in now +if it weren't for his knowledgeable, inspirational, humorous, humble, and always +positive presence. And for sure he's not at all religious about the open source +software that he sent viral. + +I'm halfway through reading \quotation {The Good Book of Human Nature} (An +Evolutionary Reading of the Bible) a book about the evolution of the bible and +monotheism which is quite interesting. It discusses for instance how transitions +from a hunter to a farmer society demanded a change of rules and introduced +stories that made sense in that changing paradigm. Staying in one place means +that possessions became more important and therefore inheritance. Often when +religion is discussed by behavioral biologists, historians and anthropologists +they stress this cultural narrative aspect. Also mentioned is that such societies +were willing to support (in food and shelter) the ones that didn't normally fit +it but added to the spiritual character of religions. The social and welcoming +aspect is definitely present in for instance Bacho\TEX\ conferences although a +bystander can wonder what these folks are doing in the middle of the night around +a campfire, singing, drinking, frying sausages, spitting fire, and discussing the +meaning of life. + +Those who wrap up the state of religious affairs, do predictions and advocate the +message, are sometimes called evangelists. I remember a \TEX\ conference in the +\USA\ where the gospel of \XML\ was preached (by someone from outside the \TEX\ +community). We were all invited to believe it. I was sitting in the back of the +crowded (!)\ room and that speaker was not at all interested in who spoke before +and after. Well, I do my share of \XML\ processing with \CONTEXT, but believe me: +much of the \XML\ that we see is not according to any gospel. It's probably +blessed the same way as those state officials get blessed when they ask and pray +for it in public. + +It can get worse at \TEX\ conferences. Some present here at Bacho\TEX\ might +remember the \PDF\ evangelists that we had show up at \TEX\ conferences. You see +this qualification occasionally and I have become quite allergic to +qualifications like architect, innovator, visionary, inspirator and evangelist, +even worse when they look young but qualify as senior. I have no problem with +religion at all but let's stay away from becoming one. And yes, typography also +falls into that trap, so we have to be doubly careful. + +\stopsection + +\startplacefigure[location=top] + \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] + {\externalfigure[covers/from-bacteria-to-bach-and-back.jpg][height=5cm]} {philosophy} + {\externalfigure[covers/the-lagoon.jpg] [height=5cm]} {science history} + {\externalfigure[covers/chaos.jpg] [height=5cm]} {science} + {\externalfigure[covers/why-zebras-dont-get-ulcers.jpg] [height=5cm]} {behavioral biology} + \stopcombination +\stopplacefigure + +\startsection[title=Chaotic solutions] + +The lectures on \quotation {chaos and reductionism} and \quotation {emergence and +complexity} were the highlights in Sapolsky's lectures. I'm not a good narrator +so I will not summarize them but it sort of boils down to the fact that certain +classes of problems cannot be split up in smaller tasks that we understand well, +after which we can reassemble the solutions to deal with the complex task. +Emerging systems can however cook up working solutions from random events. +Examples are colonies of ants and bees. + +The \TEX\ community is like a colony: we cook up solutions, often by trial and +error. We dream of the perfect solutions but deep down know that esthetics cannot +be programmed in detail. This is a good thing because it doesn't render us +obsolete. At last year's Bacho\TEX, my nephew Teun and I challenged the anthill +outside the canteen to typeset the \TEX\ logo with sticks but it didn't persist. +So we don't need to worry about competition from that end. How do you program a +hive mind anyway? + +When chaos theory evolved in the second half of the previous century not every +scientist felt happy about it. Instead of converging to more perfect predictions +and control in some fields a persistent uncertainty became reality. + +After about a decade of using \TEX\ and writing macros to solve recurring +situations I came to the conclusion that striving for a perfect \TEX\ (the +engine) that can do everything and anything makes no sense. Don Knuth not only +stopped adding code when he could do what he needed for his books, he also stuck +to what to me seems reasonable endpoints. Every hard|-|coded solution beyond that +is just that: a hard|-|coded solution that is not able to deal with the +exceptions that make up most of the more complex documents. Of course we can +theorize and discuss at length the perfect never|-|reachable solutions but +sometimes it makes more sense to admit that an able user of a desktop publishing +system can do that job in minutes, just by looking at the result and moving +around an image or piece of text a bit. + +There are some hard|-|coded solutions and presets in the programs but with +\LUATEX\ and \MPLIB\ we try to open those up. And that's about it. Thinking that +for instance adding features like protrusion or expansion (or whatever else) +always lead to better results is just a dream. Just as a butterfly flapping its +wings on one side of the world can have an effect on the other side, so can +adding a single syllable to your source completely confuse an otherwise clever +column or page break algorithm. So, we settle for not adding more to the engine, +and provide just a flexible framework. + +A curious observation is that when Edward Lorenz ran into chaotic models it was +partially due to a restart of a simulation midway, using printed floating point +numbers that then in the computer were represented with a different accuracy than +printed. Aware of floating point numbers being represented differently across +architectures, Don Knuth made sure that \TEX\ was insensitive to this so that its +outcome was predictable, if you knew how it worked internally. Maybe \LUATEX\ +introduces a bit of chaos because the \LUA\ we use has only floats. In fact, a +few months ago we did uncover a bug in the backend where the same phenomena gave +a chaotic crash. + +In chaos theory there is the concept of an attractor. When visualized this can be +the area (seemingly random) covered by a trajectory. Or it can be a single point +where for instance a pendulum comes to rest. So what is our attractor? We have a +few actually. First there is the engine, the stable core of primitives always +present. You often see programs grow more complex every update and for sure that +happened with \ETEX, \PDFTEX, \XETEX\ and \LUATEX. However there is always the +core that is supposed to be stable. After some time the new kid arrives at a +stable state not much different from the parent. The same is true for \METAPOST. +Fonts are somewhat different because the technology changes but in the end the +shapes and their interactions become stable as well. Yet another example is \TEX\ +Live: during a year it might diverge from its route but eventually it settles +down and enters the area where we expect it to end up. The \TEX\ world is at +times chaotic, but stable in the long run. + +So, how about the existence, the reason for it still being around? One can +speculate about its future trajectory but one thing is sure: as long as we break +a text into paragraphs and pages \TEX\ is hard to beat. But what if we don't need +that any more? What if the concept of a page is no longer relevant? What if +justified texts no longer matter (often designers don't care anyway)? What if +students are no longer challenged to come up with a nice looking thesis? Do these +collaborative tools with remote \TEX\ processing really bring new long term users +or is \TEX\ then just one of the come|-|and|-|go tools? + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Looking ahead] + +In an interview (\quotation {World of ideas}) Asimov explains that science +fiction evolved rapidly when people lived long enough to see that there was a +future (even for their offspring) that is different from today. It is (at least +for me) mind boggling to think of an evolution of hundreds of thousands of years +to achieve something like language. Waiting for the physical being to arrive at a +spot where you can make sounds, where the brain is suitable for linguistic +patterns, etc. A few hundred years ago speed of any developments (and science) +stepped up. + +\TEX\ is getting near 40 years old. Now, for software that {\bf is} old! In that +period we have seen computers evolve: thousands of times faster processing, even +more increase in memory and storage. If we read about spaceships that travel at a +reasonable fraction of the speed of light, and think that will not happen soon, +just think back to the terminals that were sitting in computer labs when \TEX\ +was developed: 300 baud was normal. I actually spent quite some time on +optimizing time|-|critical components of \CONTEXT\ but on this timescale that is +really a waste of time. But even temporary bottlenecks can be annoying (and +costly) enough to trigger such an effort. (Okay, I admit that it can be a +challenge, a kind of game, too.) + +Neil Tyson, in the video \quotation {Storytelling of science} says that when +science made it possible to make photos it also made possible a transition in +painting to impressionism. Other technology could make the exact snapshot so +there was new room for inner feelings and impressions. When the Internet showed +up we went through a similar transition, but \TEX\ actually dates from before the +Internet. Did we also have a shift in typesetting? To some extent yes, browsers +and real time rendering is different from rendering pages on paper. In what space +and time are \TEX ies rooted? + +We get older than previous generations. Quoting Sapolsky \quotation{\unknown\ we +are now living well enough and long enough to slowly fall apart.} The opposite is +happening with our tools, especially software: it's useful lifetime becomes +shorter and changes faster each year. Just look at the version numbers of +operating systems. Don Knuth expected \TEX\ to last for a long time and compared +to other software its core concept and implementation is doing surprisingly well. +We use a tool that suits our lifespan! Let's not stress ourselves out too much +with complex themes. (It helps to read \quotation {Why zebras don't get ulcers}.) + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Memes] + +If you repeat a message often enough, even if it's something not true, it can +become a meme that gets itself transferred across generations. Conferences like +this is where they can evolve. We tell ourselves and the audience how good \TEX\ +is and because we spend so many hours, days, weeks, months using it, it actually +must be good, or otherwise we would not come here and talk about it. We're not so +stupid as to spend time on something not good, are we? We're always surprised +when we run into a (potential) customer who seems to know \TEX. It rings a bell, +and it being around must mean something. Somehow the \TEX\ meme has anchored +itself when someone attended university. Even if experiences might have been bad +or usage was minimal. The meme that \TEX\ is the best in math typesetting is a +strong survivor. + +There's a certain kind of person who tries to get away with their own deeds and +decisions by pointing to \quotation {fake news} and accusations of \quotation +{mainstream media} cheating on them. But to what extent are our stories true +about how easy \TEX\ macro packages are to use and how good their result? We have +to make sure we spread the right memes. And the user groups are the guardians. + +Maybe macro packages are like memes too. In the beginning there was a bunch but +only some survived. It's about adaptation and evolution. Maybe competition was +too fierce in the beginning. Like ecosystems, organisms and cellular processes in +biology we can see the \TEX\ ecosystem, users and usage, as a chaotic system. +Solutions pop up, succeed, survive, lead to new ones. Some look similar and +slightly different input can give hugely different outcomes. You cannot really +look too far ahead and you cannot deduce the past from the present. Whenever +something kicks it off its stable course, like the arrival of color, graphics, +font technologies, \PDF, \XML, ebooks, the \TEX\ ecosystem has to adapt and find +its stable state again. The core technology has proven to be quite fit for the +kind of adaptation needed. But still, do it wrong and you get amplified out of +existence, don't do anything and the external factors also make you extinct. +There is no denial that (in the computer domain) \TEX\ is surprisingly stable and +adaptive. It's also hard not to see how conservatism can lead to extinction. + +\startplacefigure[location=top] + \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] + {\externalfigure[covers/the-epigenetics-revolution.jpg] [height=5cm]} {genetics} + {\externalfigure[covers/dark-matter-and-the-dinosaurs.jpg][height=5cm]} {physics} + {\externalfigure[covers/the-world-without-us.jpg] [height=5cm]} {history} + {\externalfigure[covers/what-we-cannot-know.jpg] [height=5cm]} {science} + \stopcombination +\stopplacefigure + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Inspiration] + +I just took some ideas from different fields. I could have mentioned quantum +biology, which tries to explain some unexplainable phenomena in living creatures. +For instance how do birds navigate without visible and measurable clues. How do +people arrive at \TEX\ while we don't really advertise? Or I could mention +epigenetics and explorations in junk \DNA. It's not the bit of the genome that we +thought that matters, but also the expression of the genes driven by other +factors. Offspring not only gets genetic material passed but it can get presets. +How can the \TEX\ community pass on Knuth's legacy? Do we need to hide the +message in subtle ways? Or how about the quest for dark matter? Does it really +exist or do we want (need) it to exist? Does \TEX\ really have that many users, +or do we cheat by adding the users that are enforced during college but don't +like it at all? There's enough inspiration for topics at \TEX\ conferences, we +just have to look around us. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Stability] + +I didn't go into technical aspects of \TEX\ yet. I must admit that after decades +of writing macros I've reached a point where I can safely say that there will +never be perfect automated solutions for really complex documents. When books +about neural networks show up I wondered if it could be applied (but I couldn't). +When I ran into genetic algorithms I tried to understand its possible impact (but +I never did). So I stuck to writing solutions for problems using visualization: +the trial and error way. Of course, speaking of \CONTEXT, I will adapt what is +needed, and others can do that as well. Is there a new font technology? Fine, +let's support it as it's no big deal, just a boring programming task. Does a user +want a new mechanism? No problem, as solving a reduced subset of problems can be +fun. But to think of \TEX\ in a reductionist way, i.e.\ solving the small +puzzles, and to expect the whole to work in tandem to solve a complex task is not +trivial and maybe even impossible. It's a good thing actually, as it keeps us on +edge. Also, \CONTEXT\ was designed to help you with your own solutions: be +creative. + +I mentioned my nephew Bram. He has seen part of this crowd a few times, just like +his brother and sister do now. He's into artificial intelligence now. In a few +years I'll ask him how he sees the current state of \TEX\ affairs. I might learn +a few tricks in the process. + +In \quotation {The world without us} Weisman explores how fast the world would be +void of traces of humankind. A mere 10.000 years can be more than enough. Looking +back, that's about the time hunters became farmers. So here's a challenge: say +that we want an ant culture that evolves to the level of having archaeologists to +know that we were here at Bacho\TEX\ \unknown\ what would we leave behind? + +Sapolsky ends his series by stressing that we should accept and embrace +individual differences. The person sitting next to you can have the same makeup +but be just a bit more sensitive to depression or be the few percent with genes +controlling schizophrenic behaviour. He stresses that knowing how things work or +where things go wrong doesn't mean that we should fix everything. So look at this +room full of \TEX ies: we don't need to be all the same, use all the same, we +don't need some dominance, we just need to accept and especially we need to +understand that we can never fully understand (and solve) everything forever. + +Predictions, one of the themes, can be hard. It's not true that science has the +answer to everything. There will always be room for speculation and maybe we will +always need metaphysics too. I just started to read \quotation {What we cannot +know} by Sautoy. For sure those present here can not predict how \TEX\ will go on +and|/|or be remembered. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Children of \TEX] + +I mentioned \quotation {Children of time}. The author lets you see their spidery +world through spider eyes and physiology. They have different possibilities +(eyesight, smell) than we do and also different mental capabilities. They evolve +rapidly and have to cope conceptually with signals from a human surveillance +satellite up in the sky. Eventually they need to deal with a bunch of (of course) +quarrelling humans who want their place on the planet. We humans have some +pre|-|occupation with spiders and other creatures. In a competitive world it is +sometimes better to be suspicious (and avoid and flee) that to take a risk of +being eaten. A frequently used example is that a rustle in a bush can be the wind +or a lion, so best is to run. + +We are not that well adapted to our current environment. We evolved at a very +slow pace so there was no need to look ahead more than a year. And so we still +don't look too far ahead (and choose politicians accordingly). We can also not +deal that well with statistics (Dawkins's \quotation {Climbing Mount Probability} +is a good read) so we make false assumptions, or just forget. + +Does our typeset text really look that good on the long run, or do we cheat with +statistics? It's not too hard to find a bad example of something not made by +\TEX\ and extrapolate that to the whole body of typeset documents. Just like we +can take a nice example of something done by \TEX\ and assume that what we do +ourselves is equally okay. I still remember the tests we did with \PDFTEX\ and +hz. When \THANH\ and I discussed that with Hermann Zapf he was not surprised at +all that no one saw a difference between the samples and instead was focusing on +aspects that \TEX ies are told to look at, like two hyphens in a row. + +A tool like \TEX\ has a learning curve. If you don't like that just don't use it. +If you think that someone doesn't like that, don't enforce this tool on that +someone. And don't use (or lie with) statistics. Much better arguments are that +it's a long|-|lived stable tool with a large user base and support. That it's not +a waste of time. Watching a designer like Hermann Zapf draw shapes is more fun +than watching click and point in heavily automated tools. It's probably also less +fun to watch a \TEX ie converge towards a solution. + +Spiders are resilient. Ants maybe even more. Ants will survive a nuclear blast +(mutations might even bring them benefits), they can handle the impact of a +meteorite, a change in climate won't harm them much. Their biggest enemy is +probably us, when we try to wipe them out with poison. But, as long as they keep +a low profile they're okay. \TEX\ doesn't fit into the economic model as there is +no turnaround involved, no paid development, it is often not seen at all, it's +just a hit in a search engine and even then you might miss it (if only because no +one pays for it being shown at the top). + +We can learn from that. Keeping a low profile doesn't trigger the competition to +wipe you out. Many (open source) software projects fade away: some big company +buys out the developer and stalls the project or wraps what they bought in their +own stuff, other projects go professional and enterprise and alienate the +original users. Yet others abort because the authors lose interest. Just like the +ideals of socialism don't automatically mean that every attempt to implement it +is a success, so not all open source and free software is good (natured) by +principle either. The fact that communism failed doesn't mean that capitalism is +better and a long term winner. The same applies to programs, whether successful +or not. + +Maybe we should be like the sheep. Dennett uses these animals as a clever +species. They found a way to survive by letting themselves (unconsciously) be +domesticated. The shepherd guarantees food, shelter and protection. He makes sure +they don't get ill. Speaking biologically: they definitely made sure that many +copies of their genes survived. Cows did the same and surprisingly many of them +are related due to the fact that they share the same father (something now trying +to be reverted). All \TEX\ spin|-|offs relate to the same parent, and those that +survived are those that were herded by user groups. We see bits and pieces of +\TEX\ end up in other applications. Hyphenation is one of them. Maybe we should +settle for that small victory in a future hall of fame. + +When I sit on my balcony and look at the fruit trees in my garden, some simple +math can be applied. Say that one of the apple trees has 100 apples per year and +say that this tree survives for 25 years (it's one of those small manipulated +trees). That makes 2.500 apples. Without human intervention only a few of these +apples make it into new trees, otherwise the whole world would be dominated by +apple trees. Of course that tree now only survives because we permit it to +survive, and for that it has to be humble (something that is very hard for modern +Apples). Anyway, the apple tree doesn't look too unhappy. + +A similar calculation can be done for birds that nest in the trees and under my +roof. Given that the number of birds stays the same, most of energy spent on +raising offspring is wasted. Nevertheless they seem to enjoy life. Maybe we +should be content if we get one enthusiastic new user when we demonstrate \TEX\ +to thousands of potential users. + +Maybe, coming back to the themes of the conference, we should not come up with +these kinds of themes. We seem to be quite happy here. Talking about the things +that we like, meeting people. We just have to make sure that we survive. Why not +stay low under the radar? That way nothing will see us as a danger. Let's be like +the ants and spiders, the invisible hive mind that carries our message, whatever +that is. + +When Dennett discusses language he mentions (coined) words that survive in +language. He also mentions that children pick up language no matter what. Their +minds are made for it. Other animals don't do that: they listen but don't start +talking back. Maybe \TEX\ is just made for certain minds. Some like it and pick +it up, while for others it's just noise. There's nothing wrong with that. +Predilection can be a user property. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={The unexpected}] + +In a discussion with Dawkins the well|-|spoken astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson +brings up the following. We differ only a few percent in \DNA\ from a chimp but +quite a lot in brain power, so how would it be if an alien that differs a few +percent (or more) passes by earth. Just like we don't talk to ants or chimps or +whatever expecting an intelligent answer, whatever passes earth won't bother +wasting time on us. Our rambling about the quality of typesetting probably sounds +alien to many people who just want to read and who happily reflow a text on an +ebook device, not bothered by a lack of quality. + +\startplacefigure[location=top] + \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] + {\externalfigure[covers/live-as-we-do-not-know-it.jpg][height=5cm]} {astrobiology} + {\externalfigure[covers/life-on-the-edge.jpg] [height=5cm]} {quantumbiology} + {\externalfigure[covers/rare-earth.jpg] [height=5cm]} {astrophysics} + {\externalfigure[covers/austerity.jpg] [height=5cm]} {economics} + \stopcombination +\stopplacefigure + +We tend to take ourselves as reference. In \quotation {Rare Earth} Ward and +Brownlee extrapolate the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. They are +not alone in thinking that while on one hand applying statistics to these +formulas of possible life on planets there might also be a chance that we're the +only intelligent species ever evolved. In a follow up, \quotation {Life as we do +not know it} paleontologist and astrobiologist Ward (one of my favourite authors) +discusses the possibility of life not based on carbon, which is not natural for a +carbon based species. Carl Sagan once pointed out that an alien species looking +down to earth can easily conclude that cars are the dominant species on earth and +that the thingies crawling in and out them are some kind of parasites. So, when +we look at the things that somehow end up on paper (as words, sentences, +ornaments, etc.), what is dominant there? And is what we consider dominant really +that dominant in the long run? You can look at a nice page as a whole and don't +see the details of the content. Maybe beauty hides nonsense. + +When \TEX ies look around they look to similar technologies. Commands in shells +and solutions done by scripting and programming. This make sense in the +perspective of survival. However, if you want to ponder alternatives, maybe not +for usage but just for fun, a completely different perspective might be needed. +You must be willing to accept that communicating with a user of a \WYSIWYG\ +program might be impossible. If mutual puzzlement is a fact, then they can either +be too smart and you can be too dumb or the reverse. Or both approaches can be +just too alien, based on different technologies and assumptions. Just try to +explain \TEX\ to a kid 40 years younger or to an 80 year old grandparent for that +matter. Today you can be very clever in one area and very stupid in another. + +In another debate, Neil deGrasse Tyson asks Dawkins the question why in science +fiction movies the aliens look so human and when they don't, why they look so +strange, for instance like cumbersome sluggish snails. The response to that is +one of puzzlement: the opponent has no reference of such movies. In discussions +old \TEX ies like to suggest that we should convert young users. They often don't +understand that kids live in a different universe. + +How often does that happen to us? In a world of many billions \TEX\ has its place +and can happily coexist with other typesetting technologies. Users of other +technologies can be unaware of us and even create wrong images. In fact, this +also happens in the community itself: (false) assumptions turned into +conclusions. Solutions that look alien, weird and wrong to users of the same +community. Maybe something that I present as hip and modern and high|-|\TEX\ and +promising might be the opposite: backward, old|-|fashioned and of no use to +others. Or maybe it is, but the audience is in a different mindset. Does it +matter? Let's just celebrate that diversity. (So maybe, instead of discussing the +conference theme, I should have talked about how I abuse \LUATEX\ in controlling +lights in my home as part of some IoT experiments.) + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=What drives us] + +I'm no fan of economics and big money talk makes me suspicious. I cannot imagine +working in a large company where money is the drive. It also means that I have +not much imagination in that area. We get those calls at the office from far away +countries who are hired to convince us by phone of investments. Unfortunately +mentioning that you're not at all interested in investments or that multiplying +money is irrelevant to you does not silence the line. You have to actively kill +such calls. This is also why I probably don't understand today's publishing world +where money also dominates. Recently I ran into talks by Mark Blyth about the +crisis (what crisis?) and I wish I could argue like he does when it comes to +typesetting and workflows. He discusses quite well that most politicians have no +clue what the crisis is about. + +I think that the same applies to the management of publishers: many have no clue +what typesetting is about. So they just throw lots of money into the wrong +activities, just like the central banks seem to do. It doesn't matter if we \TEX +ies demonstrate cheap and efficient solutions. + +Of course there are exceptions. We're lucky to have some customers that do +understand the issues at hand. Those are also the customers where authors may use +the tools themselves. Educating publishers, and explaining that authors can do a +lot, might be a premise, predilection and prediction in one go! Forget about +those who don't get it: they will lose eventually, unfortunately not before they +have reaped and wasted the landscape. + +Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and others invest a lot in artificial +intelligence (or, having all that virtual cash, just buy other companies that +do). They already have such entities in place to analyze whatever you do. It is +predicted that at some point they know more about you then you know yourself. +Reading Luke Dormehl's \quotation {The Formula} is revealing. So what will that +do with our so|-|called (disputed by some) free will? Can we choose our own +tools? What if a potential user is told that all his or her friends use +WhateverOffice so they'd better do that too? Will subtle pressure lead them or +even us users away from \TEX ? We already see arguments among \TEX ies, like +\quotation {It doesn't look updated in 3 years, is it still good?} Why update +something that is still valid? Will the community be forced to update everything, +sort of fake updates. Who sets out the rules? Do I really need to update (or +re|-|run) manuals every five years? + +Occasionally I visit the Festo website. This is a (family owned) company that +does research at the level that used to be common in large companies decades ago. +If I had to choose a job, that would be the place to go to. Just google for +\quotation {festo bionic learning network} and you understand why. We lack this +kind of research in the field we talk about today: research not driven by +commerce, short term profit, long term control, but because it is fundamental +fun. + +Last year Alan Braslau and I spent some time on \BIBTEX. Apart from dealing with +all the weird aspects of the \APA\ standard, dealing with the inconsistently +constructed author fields is a real pain. There have been numerous talks about +that aspect here at Bacho\TEX\ by Jean|-|Michel Hufflen. We're trying to deal +with a more than 30|-|year|-|old flawed architecture. Just look back over a curve +that backtracks 30 years of exponential development in software and databases and +you realize that it's a real waste of time and a lost battle. It's fine to have a +text based database, and stable formats are great, but the lack of structure is +appalling and hard to explain to young programmers. Compare that to the Festo +projects and you realize that there can be more challenging projects. Of course, +dealing with the old data can be a challenge, a necessity and eventually even be +fun, but don't even think that it can be presented as something hip and modern. +We should be willing to admit flaws. No wonder that Jean|-|Michel decided to +switch to talking about music instead. Way more fun. + +Our brains are massively parallel bio|-|machinery. Groups of neurons cooperate +and compete for attention. Coming up with solutions that match what comes out of +our minds demands a different approach. Here we still think in traditional +programming solutions. Will new ideas about presenting information, the follow up +on books come from this community? Are we the innovative Festo or are we an old +dinosaur that just follows the fashion? + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=User experience] + +Here is a nice one. Harari spends many pages explaining that research shows that +when an unpleasant experience has less unpleasantness at the end of the period +involved, the overall experience is valued according to the last experience. Now, +this is something we can apply to working with \TEX: often, the more you reach +the final state of typesetting the more it feels as all hurdles are in the +beginning: initial coding, setting up a layout, figuring things out, etc. + +It can only get worse if you have a few left|-|over typesetting disasters but +there adapting the text can help out. Of course seeing it in a cheap bad print +can make the whole experience bad again. It happens. There is a catch here: one +can find lots of bad|-|looking documents typeset by \TEX. Maybe there frustration +(or indifference) prevails. + +I sometimes get to see what kind of documents people make with \CONTEXT\ and it's +nice to see a good looking thesis with diverse topics: science, philosophy, +music, etc. Here \TEX\ is just instrumental, as what it is used for is way more +interesting (and often also more complex) than the tool used to get it on paper. +We have conferences but they're not about rocket science or particle +accelerators. Proceedings of such conferences can still scream \TEX, but it's the +content that matters. Here somehow \TEX\ still sells itself, being silently +present in rendering and presentations. It's like a rootkit: not really +appreciated and hard to get rid of. Does one discuss the future of rootkits other +than in the perspective of extinction? So, even as an invisible rootkit, hidden +in the workings of other programs, \TEX's future is not safe. Sometimes, when you +install a Linux system, you automatically get this large \TEX\ installation, +either because of dependencies or because it is seen as a similar toolkit as for +instance Open (or is it Libre) Office. If you don't need it, that user might as +well start seeing it as a (friendly) virus. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Conclusion] + +At some point those who introduced computers in typesetting had no problem +throwing printing presses out of the window. So don't pity yourself if at some +point in the near future you figure out that professional typesetting is no +longer needed. Maybe once we let machines rule the world (even more) we will be +left alone and can make beautiful documents (or whatever) just for the joy, not +bothering if we use outdated tools. After all, we play modern music on old +instruments (and the older rock musicians get, the more they seem to like +acoustic). + +There are now computer generated compositions that experienced listeners cannot +distinguish from old school. We already had copies of paintings that could only +be determined forgeries by looking at chemical properties. Both of these +(artificial) arts can be admired and bring joy. So, the same applies to fully +automated typeset novels (or runtime rendered ebooks). How bad is that really? +You don't dig channels with your hand. You don't calculate logarithmic tables +manually any longer. + +However, one of the benefits of the Internet is watching and listening to great +minds. Another is seeing musicians perform, which is way more fun that watching a +computer (although googling for \quotation {animusic} brings nice visuals). +Recently I ran into a wooden musical computer made by \quotation {Wintergatan} +which reminded me of the \quotation {Paige Compositor} that we use in a \LUATEX\ +cartoon. Watching something like that nicely compensates for a day of rather +boring programming. Watching how the marble machine x (mmx) evolves is yet +another nice distraction. + +Now, the average age of the audience here is pretty high even if we consider that +we get older. When I see solutions of \CONTEXT\ users (or experts) posted by +(young) users on the mailing list or stack exchange I often have to smile because +my answer would have been worse. A programmable system invokes creative +solutions. My criterion is always that it has to look nice in code and has some +elegance. Many posted solutions fit. Do we really want more automation? It's more +fun to admire the art of solutions and I'm amazed how well users use the +possibilities (even ones that I already forgot). + +One of my favourite artists on my weekly \quotation {check youtube} list is Jacob +Collier. Right from when I ran into him I realized that a new era in music had +begun. Just google for his name and \quotation {music theory interview} and you +probably understand what I mean. When Dennett comments on the next generation +(say up to 25) he wonders how they will evolve as they grow up in a completely +different environment of connectivity. I can see that when I watch family +members. Already long ago Greg Bear wrote the novel \quotation {Darwin's +Children}. It sets you thinking and when looking around you even wonder if there +is a truth in it. + +There are folks here at Bacho\TEX\ who make music. Now imagine that this is a +conference about music and that the theme includes the word \quotation {future}. +Then, imagine watching that video. You see some young musicians, one of them +probably one of the musical masterminds of this century, others instrumental to +his success, for instance by wrapping up his work. While listening you realize +that this next generation knows perfectly well what previous generations did and +achieved and how they influenced the current. You see the future there. Just look +at how old musicians reflect on such videos. (There are lots of examples of youth +evolving into prominent musicians around and I love watching them). There is no +need to discuss the future, in fact, we might make a fool of ourselves doing so. +Now back to this conference. Do we really want to discuss the future? What we +think is the future? Our future? Why not just hope that in the flow of getting +words on a medium we play our humble role and hope we're not forgotten but +remembered as inspiration. + +One more word about predicting the future. When Arthur Clarke's \quotation {2001: +A Space Odyssey} was turned into a movie in 1968, a lot of effort went into +making sure that the not so far ahead future would look right. In 1996 scientists +were asked to reflect on these predictions in \quotation {Hal's Legacy}. It +turned out that most predictions were plain wrong. For instance computers got way +smaller (and even smaller in the next 20 years) while (self|-|aware) artificial +intelligence had not arrived either. So, let's be careful in what we predict (and +wish for). + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=No more themes] + +We're having fun here, that's why we come to Bacho\TEX\ (predilection). That +should be our focus. Making sure that \TEX's future is not so much in the cutting +edge but in providing fun to its users (prediction). So we just have to make sure +it stays around (premise). That's how it started out. Just watch at Don Knuth's +3:16 poster: via \TEX\ and \METAFONT\ he got in contact with designers and I +wouldn't be surprised if that sub|-|project was among the most satisfying parts. +So, maybe instead of ambitious themes the only theme that matters is: show what +you did and how you did it. + +\stopsection + +\stopchapter + +\stopcomponent diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-contents.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-contents.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..45b21ec60 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-contents.tex @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +\startcomponent musings-contents + +\starttitle[title=Content] + \placelist[chapter][criterium=text,width=2em] +\stoptitle + +\stopcomponent diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-introduction.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-introduction.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d8dadd743 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-introduction.tex @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +% language=uk + +\startcomponent musings-introduction + +\environment musings-style + +\startchapter[title={Introduction}] + +This is a collection of articles and wrap|-|ups that don't suit in other manuals +or collections. Some are published, some meant as draft for a presentation. + +The \quotation {Children of \TEX} article is the framework for a presentation at +Bacho\TEX\ 2017 in Poland, and covers the main theme of the conference. In the +aftermath of that conference I wrote \quotation {Advertising \TEX} and later +\quotation {Why use \TEX?}. The 2018 Bacho\TEX\ conference theme is explored in +\quotation {What’s to stay, what’s to go}. After a short discussion on the +\CONTEXT\ mailing list about stability (at the moment that \MKII\ had been frozen +for more than a decade but is still used without problems) I wrote \quotation +{Stability}. + +Many of the thoughts in these articles are influenced by discussions with my +colleagues Ton Otten and Kees van Marle. Operating in a similar arena, they +provide me the reflection needed to sort out my thoughts on these matters. + +\startlines +Hans Hagen +Hasselt NL +2017\endash 1028 +\stoplines + +\stopchapter 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 diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-roadmap.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-roadmap.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f8771ba42 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-roadmap.tex @@ -0,0 +1,372 @@ +% language=uk + +% \showfontkerns + +\startcomponent musings-roadmap + +\environment musings-style + +\startchapter[title={\METATEX, a roadmap}] + +% \startlines \setupalign[flushright] +% Hans Hagen +% Hasselt NL +% September 2018 +% \stoplines + +\startsection[title={Introduction}] + +Here I will shortly wrap up the state of \LUATEX\ and \CONTEXT\ in fall 2018. I +made the first draft of this article as preparation for the \CONTEXT\ meeting +where we also discussed the future. I updated the text afterwards to match the +decisions made there. It's also a personal summary of thoughts and discussions +with team members about where to move next. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={The state of affairs}] + +After a dozen years the development of \LUATEX\ has reached a state where adding +more functionality and|/|or opening up more of the internals makes not much +sense. Apart from fixes and maybe some minor extensions, version 1.10 is what you +get. Users can do enough in \LUA\ and there is not much to gain in convenience +and performance. Of course some of the code can and will be cleaned up, as we +still see the effects of going from \PASCAL\ to \CWEB\ to \CCODE. In the process +consistency is on the radar so we might occasionally add a helper. But we also +don't want to move too far away from the original code, which is for instance why +we keep names, keys and other properties found in original \TEX, which in turn +leads to some inconsistencies with extensions added over time. We have to accept +that. + +Because \LUATEX\ development is closely related to \CONTEXT\ development, +especially \MKIV, we've also reached the moment that we can get rid of some older +code and assume the latest \LUATEX\ to be used. Because we do so much in \LUA\ +the question is always to what extent the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Just +in case you wonder why we use \LUA\ extensively, the main reason is that it is +easier and more efficient to manage data in this language and modern typesetting +needs much data. It also permits us to extend regular \TEX\ functionality. But, +one should not overrate the impact: we still let \TEX\ do what \TEX\ is best at! + +Performance is quite important. It doesn't make sense to create a powerful +typesetting system where processing a page takes a second. We have discussed +performance before since one of the complaints about \LUATEX\ is that it is slow. +A simple, basic test is this: + +\starttyping +\starttext + \dorecurse{1000}{\input tufte \par} +\stoptext +\stoptyping + +This involves 1000 times loading a file (and reporting that on the console, which +can influence runtime), typesetting paragraphs, splitting of a page and of course +loading fonts and saving to the \PDF\ file. When I run this on a modest machine, +I get these (relative) timings for the (about) 225 pages: + +\starttabulate[|l|c|c|c|c|] +\BC \TEX\ engine used \BC \PDFTEX \BC \LUATEX \BC \LUAJITTEX \BC \XETEX \NC \NR +\BC runtime in seconds \NC 2.0 \NC 3.9 \NC 3.0 \NC 8.4 \NC \NR +\stoptabulate + +Now, as expected the 8 bit \PDFTEX\ is the winner here but \LUATEX\ is not doing +that bad. I don't know why \XETEX\ is so much slower, maybe because its 64 bit +binary is less optimal. I once noticed that a 64 bit \PDFTEX\ performed worse on +such a test than \LUATEX, for which I always use 64 bit binaries. + +If you consider that often much more is done than in this example, you can take +my word that \LUATEX\ quickly outpaces \PDFTEX\ on more complex tasks. In that +sense it is now our benchmark. It must be said that the \MKIV\ code is probably a +bit more efficient than the \MKII\ code but that doesn't matter much in this +simple test because hardly any macro magic happens here; it mostly tests basic +font processing, paragraph building and page construction. I don't think that I +can squeeze out more pages per second, at least not without users telling me +where they encounter bottlenecks that don't result from their style coding. It's +no problem to write inefficient macros (or styles) so normally a user should +first carefully check her|/|his own work. Using a more modern \CPU\ with proper +caching and an \SSD\ helps too. + +So, to summarize, we can say that with version 1.10 \LUATEX\ is sort of finished. +Our mission is now to make \LUATEX\ robust and stable. Things can be added and +improved, but these are small and mostly consistency related. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={More in \LUA}] + +Till now I always managed to add functionality to \CONTEXT\ without hampering +performance too much. Of course the biggest challenge is always in handling fonts +and common features like color because that all happens in \LUA. So, the question +is, what if we delegate more of the core functionality to \LUA ? I will discuss a +few options because the \CONTEXT\ developers and users need to agree on the path +to follow. One question there is, are the possible performance hits (which can be +an inconvenience) compensated by better and easier typesetting. + +Fonts, colors, special typesetting features like spaced kerning, protrusion, +expansion, but also dropped caps, line numbering, marginal notes, tables, +structure related things, floats and spacing are not open for much discussion. +All the things that happen in \LUA\ combined with macros is there and will stay. +But how about hyphenation, paragraph building and page building? And how about a +leaner and meaner, future safe engine? + +Hyphenation is handled in the \TEX\ core. But in \CONTEXT\ already for years one +can also use a \LUA\ based variant. There is room for extensions and improvements +there. Interesting is that performance is more or less the same, so this is an +area where we might switch to the \LUA\ method eventually. It compares to fonts, +where node mode is more or less the standard and base mode the old way. + +Building the paragraphs in \LUA\ is also available in \MKIV, although it needs an +update. Again performance is not that bad, so when we add features not possible +(or hard to do) in regular \TEX, it might actually pay of to default to the +par builder written in \LUA. + +The page builder is also doable in \LUA\ but so far I only played a bit with a +\LUA\ based variant. I might pick up that thread. However, when we would switch to +\LUA\ there, it might have a bit of a penalty, unless we combine it with some +other mechanisms which is not entirely trivial, as it would mean a diversion from +the way \TEX\ does it normally. + +How about math? We could at some point do math rendering in \LUA\ but because the +core mechanism is the standard, it doesn't really makes much sense. It would also +touch the soul of \TEX. But, I might give it a try, just for fun, so that I can +play with it a bit. It's typically something for cold and rainy days with some +music in the background. + +We already use \LUA\ in the frontend: locating and reading files in \TEX, +\XML, \LUA\ and whatever input format. Normalization and manipulation is all +active and available. The backend is also depending on \LUA, like support for +special \PDF\ features and exporting to \XML . The engine still handles the page +stream conversion, font inclusion and object management. + +The inclusion of images is also handled by the engine, although in \CONTEXT\ we +can delegate \PDF\ inclusion to \LUA. Interesting is that this has no performance +hit. + +With some juggling the page stream conversion can also be done in \LUA, and I +might move that code into the \CONTEXT\ distribution. Here we do have a +performance hit: about one second more runtime on the 14 seconds needed for the +300 page \LUATEX\ manual and just over more than half a second on a 11 second +\LUAJITTEX\ run. The manual has lots of tables, verbatim, indices and uses color +as well as a more than average number of fonts and much time is spent in \LUA. So +there is a price to pay there. I tried to speed that up but there is not much to +gain there. + +So, say that we default to \LUA\ based hyphenation, which enables some new +functionality, \LUA\ based par building, which permits some heuristics for corner +cases, and \LUA\ based page building, which might result in more control over +tricky cases. A total performance hit of some 5\% is probably acceptable, +especially because by that time I might have replaced my laptop and won't notice +the degrade. This still fits in the normal progress and doesn't really demand a +roadmap or wider acceptance. And of course we would still use the same strategies +as implemented in traditional \TEX\ as default anyway. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={A more drastic move}] + +More fundamental is the question whether we delegate more backend activity to +\LUA\ code. If we decide to handle the page stream in \LUA, then the next +question is, why not also delegate object management and font inclusion to +\LUA. Now, keep in mind that this is all very \CONTEXT\ specific! Already for +more than a decade we delegate a lot to \LUA, and also we have a rather tight +control over this core functionality. This would mean that \CONTEXT\ doesn't +really need the backend code in the engine. \footnote {For generic packages like +TikZ we (can) provide some primitive emulators, which is rather trivial to +implement.} + +That situation is actually not unique. For instance, already for a while we don't +need the \LUATEX\ font loader either, as loading the \OPENTYPE\ files is done in +\LUA. So, we could also get rid of the font loader code. Currently some code is +shared with the font inclusion in the backend but that can be isolated. + +You can see a \TEX\ engine as being made from several parts, but the core really +concerns only two processes: reading, storing and expanding macros on the one +hand, and converting a stream of characters into lines, paragraphs, pages etc. +Fonts are mostly an abstraction: they are visible in so called glyph nodes as +font identifier (a number) and character code (also a number) properties. The +result, nowadays being \PDF, is also an abstraction: at some point the engine +converts the to be shipped out box in \PDF\ instructions, and in our case, +relatively simple ones. The backend registers which characters and fonts are used +and also includes the right resources. But, the backend is not part of the core +as such! It has been introduced in \PDFTEX\ and is a so called extension. + +So, what does that all mean for a future version of \CONTEXT\ and \LUATEX ? It +means that we can decide to follow up with a \CONTEXT\ that does more in \LUA, +which means not hard coded in a binary, on the one hand, but that we can also +decide to strip the engine from non|-|core code. But, given that \LUATEX\ is also +used in other macro packages, this would mean a different engine. We cannot say +that \LUATEX\ is stable when we also experiment with core components. + +We've seen folks picking up experimental versions assuming that it is a precursor +to official code. So, in order to move on we need to avoid confusion: we need to +use another name. Choosing a name is always tricky but as Taco already registered +the \METATEX\ domain, and because in the \CONTEXT\ distribution you will find +references to \METATEX, we will use that name for the future engine. Adding \LUA\ +to that name makes sense but then the name would become too long. + +The main difference between \METATEX\ and \LUATEX\ would be that the former has +no file lookup library, no hardcoded font loader, and no backend generator (but +possibly some helpers, and these need time to evolve). We're basically back where +\TEX\ started but instead of coding these extensions in \PASCAL\ or \CCODE\ we +use \LUA. We're also kind of back to when we first started experimenting with +\LUATEX\ in \CONTEXT\ where test, write and rewrite were going in parallel. But, +as said, we cannot impose that on a wide audience. + +If we go for such a lean and mean follow up, then we can also do a more drastic +cleanup of obsolete code in \CONTEXT\ (dating from \ETEX, \PDFTEX, \ALEPH, etc.). +We then are sort of back to where it all started: we go back to the basics. This +might mean dropping some primitives (one can define them as dummy). Of course we +could generalize some of the \CONTEXT\ code to provide the kicked out +functionality but would that pay of? Probably not. + +Just for the record: replacing the handling of macros, registers, grouping, etc.\ +to \LUA\ is not really an option as the performance hit would make a large system +like \CONTEXT\ sort of unusable: it's no option and not even considered (although +I must admit that I have some experimental \LUA\ based \TEX\ parser code around). + +It is quite likely that building \METATEX\ from source for the moment will be an +option to the build script. But we can also decide to simplify that process, +which is possible because we only need one binary. But in general we can assume +that one can generate \METATEX\ and \LUATEX\ from the same source. A first step +probably is a further isolation of the backend code. The fontloader and file +handling code already can be made optional. + +Given that we only need one binary (it being \LUATEX\ or \METATEX) and nowadays +only use \OPENTYPE\ fonts, one can even start thinking of a mini distribution, +possibly with a zipped resource tree, something we experimented with in the early +days of \LUATEX. + +Another though I have been playing with is a better separation between low level +and high level \CONTEXT\ commands, and whether the low level layer should be more +generic in nature (so that one can run specific packages on top of it instead of +the whole of \CONTEXT) but that might not be worth the trouble. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={Interlude}] + +If we look at the future, it's good to also look at the past. Opening up \TEX\ +the way we did has many advantages but also potential drawbacks. It works quite +well in \CONTEXT\ because we ship an integrated package. I don't think that there +are many users who kick in their own callbacks. It is possible but completely up +to the user to make sure things work out well. Performance hits, interference, +crashes: those who interfere with the internals can sort that out themselves. I'm +not sure how well that works out in other macro packages but it is a time bomb if +users start doing that. Of course the documented interfaces to use \LUA\ in +\CONTEXT\ are supported. So far I think we're not yet bitten in the tail. We keep +this aspect out of the discussion. + +Another important aspect is stability of the engine. Sometimes we get suggestions +for changes or patches that works for a specific case but for sure will have side +effects on \CONTEXT. Just as we don't test \LATEX\ side effects, \LATEX\ users +don't check \CONTEXT. And we're not even talking of users who expect their code +to keep working. A tight control over the source is important but cannot be we +will not be around for ever. This means that at some point \LUATEX\ should not be +changed any more, even when we observe side effects we want to get rid of, +because these side effects can be in use. This is another argument for a stripped +down engine. The less there is to mess with, the less the mess. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={Audience}] + +So how about \CONTEXT\ itself? Of course we can make it better. We can add more +examples and more documentation. We can try to improve support. The main question +for us (as developers) is who actually is our audience. From the mails coming to +the \CONTEXT\ support list it looks like a rather diverse group of users. + +At \TEX\ meetings there are often discussions about promoting \TEX. I can agree +on the fact that even for simple documents it makes a lot of sense to use \TEX, +but who will take the first hurdles? How many people really produce a lot of +documents? And how many need \TEX\ after maybe a short period of (enforced) usage +at the university? + +It's not trivial to recognize the possibilities and power of the +\LUATEX|-|\CONTEXT\ combination. We never got any serious requests for support +from large organizations. In fact, we do use this combination in a few projects +for educational publishers, but there it's actually the authors and editors doing +the work. It's seldom company policy to use tools that efficiently automate +typesetting. I dare to say that publishers are not really an audience at all: +they normally delegate the task. They might accept \TEX\ documents but let them +rekey or adapt far|-|far|-|away and as cheap as possible. Thinking of it, the +main reason for Don Knuth for writing \TEX\ in the first place was the ability to +control the look and feel and quality. It were developments at typesetters and +publishers that triggered development of \TEX . It was user demand. And the +success of \TEX\ was largely due to the unique personality and competence of the +author. + +System integrators qualify as audience but I fear that \TEX\ is not considered +hip and modern. It doesn't seem to matter if you can demonstrate that it can do a +wonderful job efficiently and relatively cheap. Also the fact that an +installation can be very stable on the long run is of no importance. Maybe that +audience (market place) is all about \quotation {The more we have to program and +update regularly, the merrier.}. Marketing \TEX\ is difficult. + +Those who render multiple products, maintain manuals, have to render many +documents automatically qualify as audience. But often company policies, +preferred suppliers, so called standard tools etc.\ are used as argument against +\TEX. It's a missed opportunity. + +One needs a certain mindset to recognize the potential and the question is, how +do we reach that audience. Drawing a roadmap for that is not easy but worth +discussing. We're open for suggestions. + +% \footnote {It's kind of interesting that recently the \TEX\ User Group announced +% its presence on Facebook and Twitter. Apart from wondering how that gets updated, +% one can also wonder how many potential (or even current) users go there, given +% that these platforms are subjected to rise and fall. I'm on neither of them and +% don't plan to. Kids (our future users) that I know already said goodbye to them. +% We'll see how that works out.} + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={Conclusion}] + +At the \CONTEXT\ user meeting those present agreed that moving forward this way +makes sense. This means that we will explore a lean and mean \METATEX\ alongside +\LUATEX. There is no rush and it's all volunteer work so we will take our time +for this. It boils down to some reshuffling of code so that we can remove the +built|-|in font loader, file handling, and probably also \SYNCTEX\ because we can +emulate that. Then the backend with its font inclusion code will be cleaned up a +bit (we even discussed only supporting modern wide fonts). It's no big deal to +adapt \CONTEXT\ to this (so it can and will support both \LUATEX\ and \METATEX). +Eventually the backend might go away but now we're talking years ahead. By then +we can also explore the option to make \METATEX\ start out as a \LUA\ function +call (the main control loop) and become reentrant. There will probably not be +many changes to the opened up \TEX\ kernel, but we might extend the \METAPOST\ +part a bit (some of that was discussed at the meeting) especially because it is a +nice tool to visualize big data. + +As with \LUATEX\ development we will go in small steps so that we keep a working +system. Of course \LUATEX\ is always there as stable fallback. The experiments +will mostly happen in the experimental branch and binaries will be generated +using the compile farm on the \CONTEXT\ garden, just as happens now. This also +limits testing and exploring to the \CONTEXT\ community so that there are no side +effects for mainstream \LUATEX\ usage. + +Nowadays, instead if roadmaps, we tend to use navigational gadgets that adapt +themselves to the situation. On the road by car this can mean a detour and when +walking around it can be going to suggested points of interest. During the +excursion at the meeting, we noticed that after the drivers (navigators) +synchronized their gadget with Jano, the routes that were followed differed a +bit. We saw cars in front of going a different direction and cars behind us +arriving from a different direction. So, even when we talk about roadmaps, our +route can be adapted to the situation. + +Now here is something to think about. If you look at the \TEX\ community you will +notice that it's an aging community. User groups seem to loose members, although +the \CONTEXT\ group is currently still growing. Fortunately we see a new +generation taking interest and the \CONTEXT\ users are a pleasant mix and it +makes me stay around. I see it as an \quote {old timers} responsibility to have +\TEX\ and its environment in a healthy state by the time I retire from it +(although I have no plans in that direction). In parallel to the upcoming +development I think we will also see a change in \TEX\ use and usage. This aspect +was also discussed at the meeting and for sure will get a follow up on the +mailing lists and future meetings. It might as well influence the decisions we +make the upcoming years. So far \TEX\ has never failed us in it's flexibility and +capacity to adapt, so let's end on that positive note. + +\stopsection + +\stopchapter + +\stopcomponent diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-stability.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-stability.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7dc35c6be --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-stability.tex @@ -0,0 +1,388 @@ +% language=uk + +\environment musings-style + +\startcomponent musings-stability + +\startchapter[title={Stability}] + +\startsubject[title=Introduction] + +How stable is \CONTEXT ? This question is hard to answer. For instance \MKII\ +hasn't changed for years and seems to work quite well: no changes equals +stability. Those who use it can do with what it offers. The potentially sensitive +dependencies on for instance fonts are probably absent because there is not much +development in the 8 bit fonts arena. As long as these are available we're okay, +in fact, \OPENTYPE\ fonts are more a moving target and therefore less stable. + +What do we mean by stable? The fundamental differences between an 8 bit engine +(and fonts) and an \UNICODE\ aware engine able to handle \OPENTYPE\ fonts is +substantial which is why we dropped some functionality and added some relevant +new. One can consider that a problem but in practice using fonts has become +easier so no one is hurt by it. Here we need to keep in mind that \PDFTEX\ is +really stable: it uses fonts and technology that doesn't change. On the other +hand \XETEX\ and \LUATEX\ follow new trends. Thereby \XETEX\ uses libraries, +which introduces a dependency and instability, while \LUATEX\ assumes solutions +in \LUA\ which means that users and macro writers can tweak and thereby also +introduce instability (but at least one can adapt that code). + +Due to the way the user interface is set up, it is unlikely that \CONTEXT\ will +change. But the fact that we now have \LUA\ available means that many commands +have been touched. Most behave compatible, some have more functionality, and of +course we have a \LUA\ interface. We include a lot of support code which also +lessens dependencies. + +The user input is normally \TEX\ but when you use \XML\ the move to \MKIV\ meant +that we dropped the \MKII\ way of dealing with it in favour of a completely new +mechanism. I get the impression that those using \XML\ don't regret that change. +Talking of stability the \MKIV\ \XML\ interface is typically a mechanism that is +stable and might change little. We can add new trickery but the old stays as it +is. + +If we look at the output, there is \DVI\ and \PDF. In \MKII\ the \DVI\ could +become \POSTSCRIPT. As there are different \DVI\ post|-|processors the backend +code was using a plug|-|in model. Contrary to other macro packages there was only +one so called format that could adapt itself to the required (engine specific) +output. A \CONTEXT\ run has always been managed by a wrapper so users were not +bothered much by what \TEX\ engine they used and|/|or what backend was triggered. +This changed with \MKIV\ where we use just \LUATEX, always produce \PDF\ and +optionally can export \XML. But again the run is managed by a wrapper, which +incidentally is written in \LUA\ and thereby avoids dependencies on for instance +\PERL, \RUBY\ or \PYTHON, which are moving targets, use libraries and additional +user code, and thereby are potentially instable too. + +The \PDF\ code that is produced is a mix of what the engine spits out and what +the macro package injects. The code is normally rather simple. This means that +it's no big deal to support the so called standards. It also means that we can +support advanced interactivity and other features but these also depends on the +viewers used. So, stability here is more fluent, for instance because the \PDF\ +standard evolves and|/|or we need to adapt to viewers. Special demands like +tagged \PDF\ have been supported right from the start but how that evolves +depends mostly on input from users who need it. Again, that is less important +(and crucial) for stability than the rendering capabilities. + +The fact that we use \LUA\ creates a dependency on that language but the reason +that we use it is {\em because} it is so stable. We follow the updates and so far +that worked out well. Now, say that we had a frozen version of \CONTEXT\ 2010 and +\LUATEX\ 1.09 that uses \LUA\ 5.3, would that work? First of all, in 2010 +\LUATEX\ itself was evolving so the answer is probably \quotation {no}, unless +one adds a few compatibility patches. I'm not going to try it. The change from +5.1 to 5.2 to 5.3 was not really a problem I think and the few issues could be +dealt with easily. If you want long term stability and use a lot of \LUA\ code +you can take it into account when coding. Avoiding external libraries is a good +start. + +Fonts are more than before moving targets. So, if you want stability there you +should save them with your document source. The processing of them has evolved +and has been improved over time. By now it's rather stable. More recent code can +catch more issues and fixes are relatively easy. But it's an area that you always +need to check when you update an old distribution. The same is true for language +related hyphenation patterns and script specific support. The community is no +longer leading in the math department either (\OPENTYPE\ math is a \MICROSOFT\ +invention). But, the good news is that the \TEX\ ecosystem is always fast to +adapt and can also often provide more functionality. + +Vertical spacing, in fact spacing in general is an aera that can always be +improved, so there is where you can expect changed. The same is true for side +floats or mechanisms where content is somehow attached to other moving content, +for instance marginal notes. + +But code dealing with fonts, color, scripts, structure, and specific features +that once written don't need more, will not change that much. As mentioned for +fonts, like any resource, we also depend on third parties. Colors can relate to +standards, but their main properties are unchanged. Support for specific scripts +can (and will) be improved due to user input and demands so there the users also +influence stability. Structure doesn't really influence the overall rendering, +but the way you set it up does, but that's user styling. Of course during the +transition from \MKII\ to \MKIV\ and the evolution of \LUATEX\ things could be +broken, but fixing something structural seldom relates to rendering. If for +instance we improve the interpretation of \BIBTEX\ input , which can be real +messy, that involves data processing, nor rendering. When we improve support for +the \APA\ standard, which is complex, it might involve rendering but then that's +asked for and expected. One cannot do better than the input permits. + +\stopsubject + +\startsubject[title=Publishers] + +When discussing stability and especially stability as requirement we need to look +at the way \CONTEXT\ is used. So let's look at a few scenarios. Say that a +publisher gets a camera ready book from an author in \PDF\ format. In that +case the author can do all tweaks needed. Now say that the publisher also wants +the source code in a format that makes reuse possible. + +But let's face reality. Will that publisher really reformat the document in \PDF\ +again? It's very unlikely. First of all the original \PDF\ can be kept, and +second, a reformat only makes sense after updating the content or going for a +completely different layout. It's basically a new book then. In that case literal +similarity of output is irrelevant. It is a cheap demand without much substance. + +When the source is used for a different purpose the tool used to make the \PDF\ +is irrelevant. In that case the coding of the source can matter. If it is in some +dialect of \TEX, fine, one has to convert it anyway (to suit the other usage). If +there is an \XML\ export available, fine too as it can be transformed, given that +the structure is rich enough, something that is unlikely to have been checked +when the original was archived. Then there could have been the demand for a +document in some other format and who can guarantee stability of the tools used +there? Just look at how \MICROSOFT\ Word evolved, or for that matter, its +competitors. On the average \TEX\ is more stable as one can snapshot a \TEX\ tree +and run binaries for years, if needed, in a virtual machine. + +So, I don't think that a publisher is of any relevance in the discussion about +stability. Even if we can clearly define what a publisher is, I doubt if +publishers themselves can be considered long term stable organizations. Not +today. I'm not sure if (especially the large) publishers really deserve a place +in the discussion about stability but I'm willing to discuss that when I run into +one. + +The main problem that an author can face when being confronted with the stability +issue this way is that the times are long gone that publishers have a clue about +what \TEX\ is, how it evolved and how it always had to and did adapt to changing +requirements. If you're lucky you will run into someone who does know all this. +They're normally a bit older and have seen the organization from any angles and +therefore are fun to work with. + +But even then, rendering issues are often not high on their agenda. Outsourcing +often has become the modus operandi which basically brings us to the second group +involved in this discussion: suppliers. + +\stopsubject + +\startsubject[title=Suppliers] + +I don't know many suppliers other than the ones we ran into over a few decades. +At least where I live the departments that are responsible for outsourcing +typesetting like to deal with only a few large suppliers, interestingly because +they assume that they are stable. However, in my experience hardly any of those +seem to have survived. (Of course one can wonder if long term commitment really +is that important in a world where companies change so fast.) This is somewhat +obscured by the fact that publishers themselves merge, reorganize, move people +around, etc. so who can check on the stability of suppliers. It is definitely a +fact that at least recently hardly any of them played a rol of any relevance in +the development of stable tools. In the past the membership of \TEX\ user groups +contained people working at publishers and suppliers but that has changed. + +Let's focus on the suppliers that somehow use \TEX\ and let's consider two kind +of suppliers: small ones, one were only a few people work, and large ones. The +small ones depend on stable \TEX\ distributions, like \TEX Live where they can +get the resources from: styles, fonts, patterns, binaries. If they get the +authors \TEX\ files they need to have that access. They have to rework that input +into what the customer demands and that likely involves tweaks. So, maybe they +have developed their own additional code. For that code, stability is their own +responsibility. Did they tweak core code of a macro package? Fine, but you might +have it coming when you update. You cannot expect the evolving free meal world to +stick to your commercial needs. A supplier can play safe and somehow involve the +developers of macro packages or consult them occasionally, but does that really +happen often? Interesting is that a few times that I was asked for input it was +also wrapped in obscurity, as if some holy grail of styling was involved, while +it's quite likely that the developer of a macro package can write such a style +(or extra code) easily and probably also better. There really is not that much +unique code around. + +Small suppliers can be on mailing lists where they can contribute, get feedback, +provide testing, etc. They are part of a process and as such have some influence +on stability. If they charge by the page, then a change in their tools can be +reflected in what they charge. Basically redoing a book (or so) after a decade is +doing a new job. And adapting to some new options in a package, as part of a +typesetting job is probably no big deal. Is commercial really more stable than +open source free software? Probably not, except from open source software +developers whose real objective is to eventually sell their stuff to some company +(and cash) and even accept it to be ditched. Small suppliers are more flexible. + +The large suppliers are a different group. They often guard their secrets and +stay in the dark. They probably seldom share (fundamental) code and information. +If they are present in a community it can be for marketing reasons. If at some +point a large supplier would demand stability, then my first response would be: +sure I can make you a stable setup and maybe even provide intermediate patches +but put your money where your mouth is. But that never happened and I've come to +the conclusion that we can safely ignore that group. The \TEX\ user groups create +distributions and have for instance funded font development and it are the common +users who paid for that, not the scale ones. To some extent this is actually good +because large (software related) organizations often have special agendas that +can contradict what we aim at in the long term. + +From the authors perspective there is a dilemma here. When you submit to a +publisher who outsources, it can be a demand to deliver in a specific \TEX\ +format. Often a \PDF\ comes with the source then, so that the intended rendering +is known. Then that source goes to a supplier who then (quite likely) redoes a +lot of the coding in some stable subset, maybe even in a very old version of the +macro package. If I were such an author I'd render the document in \quote {as +stupid as possible mode} because you gain nothing by spending time on the looks. +So, stability within the package that you use is easy and translation from one to +another probably also. It's best to check beforehand what will happen with your +source and let stability, if mentioned, be their problem. After all they get paid +for it. + +Suppliers seldom know \CONTEXT. An interesting question is if they really know +the alternatives well, apart from the bit they use. A well structured \CONTEXT\ +source (or probably any source) is often easy to convert to another format. You +can assume that a supplier has tools for that (although we're often surprised +about the poor quality of tools used). Often the strict demand for some kind of +format is an excuse for lack of knowledge. Unfortunately you need a large author +base to change that attitude. + +\stopsubject + +\startsubject[title=Authors] + +Before we move to some variants of the above, first I will look at stability from +the authors perspective. When a book is being written the typesetting more or +less happens as part of the process. The way it looks can influence the way you +write and vise versa. Once the book is done it can go in print and, unless you +were using beta versions of \CONTEXT\ and updated frequently. Normally you will +try to work in a stable setup. Of course when a user asks for additional features +while working on a project, he or she should also accept other beta features +and side effects. + +After a few years an author might decide to update the book. The worst that can +happen is that the code doesn't run with the latest \CONTEXT. This is not so +likely because commands are upward compatible. However, the text might come out a +bit different, for instance because different fonts or patterns are used. But on +the average paragraphs will come out the same in \TEX. You can encounter +differences in the vertical spacing and page breaks, because that is where +improvements are still possible. If you use conceptually and implementation wise +complex mechanism like side floats, you can also run into compatibility issues. +But all these don't really matter much because the text will be updated anyway +and fine|-|tuning of page breaks (if at all) happens at the end. The more you try +to compete with desk top publishing, and the more tweaks you apply, the greater +is the risk that you introduce instability. It is okay for a one|-|time job, but +when you come back to it after a decade, be prepared for surprises. + +Even if you stick to the original coding, it makes sense to sacrifice some of that +stability if new mechanisms have become available. For instance, if you use +\METAPOST, better ways to solve your problem might have become available. Or if +you document is 15 years old, a move from \MKII\ to \MKIV\ is a valid option, +in which case you might also consider using the latest fonts. + +Of course, when you made a style where you patched core code, you can expect +problems, because anything not explicitly mentioned in the interface definition +files is subjected to change. But you probably see that coming anyway. + +So, is an author (or stand alone user) really dependent on stability? Probably +less than thought. In fact, the operating system, internet and browsers, +additional tools: all change over time and one adapts. It's something one can +live with. Just see how people adapt to phones, tablets, social media, electric +cars, etc. As long as the document processes and reasonable output is generated +it's fine. And that is always what we aim at! After all we need to be able to use +it ourselves, don't we? + +\stopsubject + +\startsubject[title=Projects] + +Although it is often overlooked as valid alternative in rendering in large scale +projects, \CONTEXT\ is perfect as component in a larger whole. Something goes +in, something comes out. In a long term project one can just install a minimal +distribution, write styles, and run it for ages. Use a virtual machine and +we're talking decades without any change. And, when one updates, it's easy to check +if all still works. Often the demands and styles are simple and predictable. It's +way more likely that a hard coded solution in some large programming environment has +stability issues than that the \CONTEXT\ bit has. + +If \CONTEXT\ is used in for instance documentation of (say) software, again there +is no real issue. Such documents are simple, evolve and therefore have no stable +page flow, and updating \CONTEXT\ is not needed if the once decided upon coding +is stable. You don't need the latest features. We've written styles and setups for +such tasks and indeed they run for ages. + +It can make me smile to see how much effort sometimes goes in low quality +rendering where \CONTEXT\ could do a way better job with far less investment in +time and money but where using some presumed stable toolkit is used instead, one +that comes with expensive licensing, from companies that come and go but shine in +marketing. (A valid question is to what extent the quality of and care for +documentation reflects the core products that a company produces, at least under +the hood.) + +The biggest hurdle in setting up a decent efficient workflow is that it has to be +seen as a project: proper analysis, proper planning, prototyping and testing, +etc. You invest first and gain later. When dealing with paper many publishers +still think in price per page and have problems seeing that a stable mostly +automated flow in the end can result in a ridiculous low price per page, +especially in typesetting on demand. + +\stopsubsubject + +\startsubject[title=Hybrids] + +Last I will mention a setup that we sometimes are involved in. An author writes +books and uses \TEX. The publisher is okay with that and adds some quality +assurance but in the end the product comes from the author. Maybe images are +oursourced (not always for the better) but these can be handled easily. It can be that +a copy|-|editor is involved and that person also then has to use \TEX\ of course, +or feedback to the author. + +Publishers, and this really depends on knowledgeable persons, which as said can +be fun to work with, can look beyond paper and also decide for additional +materials, for instance web pages, interactive exercises, etc. In that case +either \CONTEXT\ input has to be available as \XML\ (an export) or (often better) +\XML\ is the starting point for multiple output. Contrary to what is believed, +there are authors out there who have no problem coding in \XML\ directly. They +think in structured content and reuse! The fact that they can hit a button in the +editor and see the result in \PDF\ helps a lot. It just works. + +Here stability is either achieved by simply not updating during a project. There +are however cases where an update is needed, for instance because demands +changed. An example is a project where \ASCIIMATH\ is used which is a moving +target. Of course one can update just that module, and often that works, but not +when a module uses some new improved core helpers. Another example is additional +proofing options. + +The budget of such projects seldom permit patching an existing distribution, so +we then just update to the latest but not after checking if the used style works +okay. There is no author involvement in this. Depending on the workflow, it can +even be that the final rendering which involves fine tuning (side) float placement +or page breaks (often educational documents have special demands) is done by us +using special directives. + +Such hybrid workflows are quite convenient for all parties. The publisher works +with the author who likes using these tools, the author can do her or his thing +in the preferred way, and we do what we're best in: supporting this. And it +scales up pretty well too if needed, without much costs for the publishers. + +\stopsubject + +\startsubject[title=Conclusion] + +So what can we conclude with respect to the demand for stability? First of course +that it's important that our files keep running well. So, functionality should be +stable. Freezing a distribution will make sure that during project you don't run +into issues. Many \CONTEXT\ users update frequently in order to benefit from the +latest additions. Most will not be harmed by this, but when something really +breaks it's users like those on the \CONTEXT\ support list (who often also +contribute in helping out other users) that are listened to first. Publishers +demands play no role in this, if only because they also play no role in +typesetting, and if they want to they should also contribute. The same is true +for large suppliers. We're talking of free software often written without any +compensation so these parties have no say in the matter unless they pay for it. +It's small suppliers, authors and general users that matter most. If \CONTEXT\ is +part of a workflow that we support, of course stability is guaranteed quite well, +and those paying for that never have an issue with better solutions popping up. +In fact, \CONTEXT\ is often just a tool then, one that does the job and questions +about stability don't matter much in practice, as long as it does the job well. + +The main engine we use, \LUATEX, will be quite stable from version 1.10 and we'll +try to make sure that newer versions are capable of running an older \CONTEXT, +which is easier when no fundamental changes happen in the engine. Maybe a stripped +down version of \LUATEX\ for \CONTEXT\ can facilitate that objective even more. + +Users themselves can try to stick to standard \CONTEXT\ features. The more tricks +you apply, the less stable your future might be. Most mechanism are not evolving +but some, like those that deal with columns, might become better over time. But +typesetting in columns is often a one|-|shot adventure anyway (and who needs +columns in the future). + +Of one thing users can be sure. There will never be a \CONTEXT\ professional or +\CONTEXT\ enterprise. There is only one variant. All users get the same +functionality and policies don't change suddenly. There will be no lock in to some +cloud or web based service either. Of course one can hire us for support of any +kind but that's independent of the distributed package. There is support by users +for users on mailing lists and other media. That itself can also guard stability. + +But, always keep in mind that stability and progress, either of not driven by the +environment that we operate in, can be in conflict. + +\stopsubject + +\stopchapter + +\stopcomponent diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-staygo.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-staygo.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4be647e47 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-staygo.tex @@ -0,0 +1,461 @@ +% language=uk + +% Written with on repeat: +% +% Rai Thistlethwayte: Betty Page (the keyscape version) + +% \usemodule[art-01,abr-04] +% +% \setupbodyfont[12pt] +% +% \startdocument +% [title={What’s to stay, what’s to go}, +% subtitle={The 2018 Bacho\TeX\ theme}, +% author={Hans Hagen}] + +\definedescription + [theme] + [before=\startnarrower, + after=\stopnarrower, + title=yes, + alternative=serried, + width=fit, + distance=.5\emwidth, + text={\documentvariable{title}:}] + +% \starttitle[title=\documentvariable{title}\\\txx\documentvariable{subtitle}] + +\startcomponent musings-staygo + +\environment musings-style + +\startchapter[title={What’s to stay, what’s to go}] + +\startsection[title=Introduction] + +The following text was written as preparation for a 2018 talk at Bacho\TEX, which +has this theme. It's mostly a collection of thoughts. It was also more meant as a +wrapup for the presentation (possibly with some discussions) than an article. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Attraction] + +There are those movies where some whiz-kid sits down behind a computer, keys in a +few commands, and miracles happen. Ten fingers are used to generate programs that +work immediately. It's no problem to bypass firewalls. There is no lag over +network connections. Checking massive databases is no big deal and there's even +processing power left for real time visualization or long logs to the terminal. + +How boring and old fashioned must a regular edit||run||preview cycle look +compared to this. If we take this 2018 movie reality as reference, in a time when +one can suck a phone empty with a simple connection, pull a hard drive from a +raid five array and still get all data immediately available, when we can follow +realtime whoever we want using cameras spread over the country, it's pretty clear +that this relatively slow page production engine \TEX\ has no chance to survive, +unless we want to impress computer illiterate friends with a log flying by on the +console (which in fact is used in movies to impress as well). + +On YouTube you can find these (a few hours) sessions where Jacob Collier +harmonizes live in one of these Digital Audio Workstation programs. A while later +on another channel June Lee will transcribe these masterpieces into complex +sheets of music by ear. Or you can watch the weekly Wintergatan episodes on +building the Marble Machine from wood using drilling, milling, drawing programs +etc. There are impressive videos of multi|-|dimensional led arrays made by hand +and controlled by small computers and robots that solve Rubic Cubes. You can be +impressed by these Animusic videos, musicians show their craftmanship and +interesting informative movies are all over the place. I simply cannot imagine +millions of kids watching a \TEX\ style being written in a few hours. It's a real +challenge for an attention span. I hope to be proven wrong but I fear that for +the upcoming generation it's probably already too late because the \quote {whow} +factor of \TEX\ is low at first encounter. Although: picking up one of Don Knuths +books can have that effect: a nice mixture of code, typesetting and subtle +graphics, combined with great care, only possible with a system like \TEX. + +\starttheme + Biology teaches us that \quote {cool} is not a recipe for \quote {survival}. + Not all designs by nature look cool, and it's only efficiency and + functionality that matters. Beauty sometimes matters too but many functional + mechanisms can do without. So far \TEX\ and its friends were quite capable to + survive so there must be something in it that prevents it to be discarded. + But survival is hard to explain. So far \TEX\ just stayed around but lack of + visual attraction is a missing competitive trait. +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Satisfaction] + +Biology also teaches us that chemistry can overload reason. When we go for +short|-|term pleasure instead of long|-|term satisfaction (Google for Simon Sinek +on this topic), addiction kicks in (for instance driven by crossing the dopamine +thresholds too often, Google for Robert Sapolsky). Cool might relate more to +pleasure while satisfaction relates to an effort. Using \TEX\ is not that cool +and often takes an effort. But the results can be very satisfying. Where \quote +{cool} is rewarding in the short term, \quote {satisfaction} is more a long term +effect. So, you probably get the best (experience) out of \TEX\ by using it a +lifetime. That's why we see so many old \TEX ies here: many like the rewards. + +If we want to draw new users we run into the problem that humans are not that +good in long term visions. This means that we cannot rely on showing cool (and +easy) features but must make sure that the long term reward is clear. We can try +to be \quote {cool} to draw in new users, but it will not be the reason they +stay. Instant success is important for kids who have to make a report for school, +and a few days \quotation {getting acquainted with a program} doesn't fit in. +It's hard to make kids addicted to \TEX\ (which could be a dubious objective). + +\starttheme + As long as the narrative of satisfaction can be told we will see new users. + Meetings like Bacho\TEX\ is where the narrative gets told. What will happen + when we no longer meet? +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Survival] + +Survival relates to improvements, stability and discarding of weak aspects. +Unfortunately that does not work out well in practice. Fully automated +multi||columns typesetting with all other elements done well too (we just mention +images) is hard and close to impossible for arbitrary cases, so nature would have +gotten rid of it. Ligatures can be a pain especially when the language is not +tagged and some kind of intelligence is needed to selectively disable them. They +are the tail of the peacock: not that handy but meant to be impressive. Somehow +it stayed around in automated typesetting, in biology it would be called a freak +of nature: probably a goodbye in wildlife. And how about page breaks on an +electronic device: getting rid of them would make the floating figures go away +and remove boundary conditions often imposed. It would also make widows and clubs +less of a problem. One can even wonder if with page breaks the windows and clubs +are the biggest problems, and if one can simply live with them. After all, we can +live with our own bodily limitations too. After all, (depending on what country +you live in) you can also live with bad roads, bad weather, polution, taxes, lack +of healthcare for many, too much sugar in food, and more. + + +\starttheme + Animals or plants that can adapt to live on a specific island might not + survive elsewhere. Animals or plants introduced in an isolated environment + might quickly dominate and wipe out the locals. What are the equivalents in + our \TEX\ ecosystem? +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Niches] + +But arguments will not help us determine if \TEX\ is the fittest for survival. +It's not a rational thing. Humans are bad in applying statistics in their live, +and looking far ahead is not a treat needed to survive. Often nature acts in +retrospect. (Climbing mount probability by Richard Dawkins). So, it doesn't +matter if we save time in the future if it complicates the current job. If +governments and companies cannot look ahead and act accordingly, how can we +extrapolate software (usage) or more specifically typesetting demands. Just look +at the political developments in the country that hosts this conference. Could we +have predicted the diminishing popularity of the \EU\ (and disturbing retrograde +political mess in some countries) of 2018 when we celebrated the moment Poland +joining the \EU\ at a Bacho\TEX\ campfire? + +Extrapolating the future quality of versions of \TEX\ or macro packages also doesn't +matter much. With machine learning and artificial intelligence around the corner and +with unavoidable new interfaces that hook into our brains, who knows what systems +we need in the future. A generic flexible typesetting system is probably not the +most important tool then. When we discuss quality and design it gets personal so +a learning system that renders neutrally coded content into a form that suits +an individual, demands a different kind of tool than we have now. + +On the short term (our live span) it makes more sense to look around and see how +other software (ecosystems) fare. Maybe we can predict \TEX's future from that. +Maybe we can learn from others mistakes. In the meantime we should not flatter +ourselves with the idea that a near perfect typesetting system will draw attention +and be used by a large audience. Factors external to the community play a too +important role in this. + +\starttheme + It all depends on how well it fits into a niche. Sometimes survival is only + possible by staying low on the radar. But just as we destroy nature and kill + animals competing for space, programs get driven out of the software world. + On a positive note: in a project that provides open (free) math for schools + students expressed to favour a printed book over \WEB|-|only (one curious + argument for \WEB\ was that it permits easier listening to music at the same + time). +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Dominance] + +Last year I installed a bit clever (evohome) heating control system. It's +probably the only \quotation {working out of the box} system that supports 12 +zones but at the same time it has a rather closed interface as any other. One can +tweak a bit via a web interface but that one works by a proxy outside so there is +a lock in. Such a system is a gamble because it's closed and we're talking of a +20 year investment. I was able to add a layer of control (abusing \LUATEX\ as +\LUA\ engine and \CONTEXT\ as library) so let's see. When I updated the boiler I +also reconfigured some components (like valves) and was surprised how limited +upgrading was supported. One ends up with lost settings and weird interference +and it's because I know a bit of programming that I kept going and managed to add +more control. Of course, after a few weeks I had to check a few things in the +manuals, like how to enter the right menu. + +So, as the original manuals are stored somewhere, one picks up the smart phone +and looks for the manual on the web. I have no problem with proper \PDF\ as a +manual but why not provide a simple standard format document alongside the fancy +folded A3 one. Is it because it's hard to produce different instances from one +source? Is it because it takes effort? We're talking of a product that doesn't +change for years. + +\starttheme + The availability of flexible tools for producing manuals doesn't mean that + they are used as such. They don't support the survival of tools. Bad examples + are a threat. Dominant species win. +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Extinction] + +When I was writing this I happened to visit a bookshop where I always check the +SciFi section for new publications. I picked out a pocket and wondered if I had +the wrong glasses on. The text was wobbling and looked kind of weird. On close +inspection indeed the characters were kind of randomly dancing on the baseline +and looked like some 150 \DPI\ (at most) scan. (By the way, I checked this the +next time I was there by showing the book to a nephew.) I get the idea that quite +some books get published first in the (more expensive) larger formats, so +normally I wait till a pocket size shows up (which can take a year) so maybe here +I had to do with a scan of a larger print scaled down. + +What does that tell us? First of all that the publisher doesn't care about the +reader: this book is just unreadable. Second, it demonstrates that the printer +didn't ask for the original \PDF\ file and then scaled down the outline copy. It +really doesn't matter in this case if you use some high quality typesetting +program then. It's also a waste of time to talk to such publishers about quality +typesetting. The printer probably didn't bother to ask for a \PDF\ file that +could be scaled down. + +\starttheme + In the end most of the publishing industry will die and this is just one of + the symptoms. Typesetting as we know it might fade away. +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Desinterest] + +The newspaper that I read has a good reputation for design. But why do they need +to drastically change the layout and font setup every few years? Maybe like an +animal marking his or her territory a new department head also has to put a mark +on the layout. Who knows. For me the paper became pretty hard to read: a too +light font that suits none of the several glasses that I have. So yes, I spend +less time reading the paper. In a recent commentary about the 75 year history of +the paper there was a remark about the introduction of a modern look a few +decades ago by using a sans serif font. I'm not sure why sans is considered +modern (most handwriting is sans) and to me some of these sans fonts look pretty +old fashioned compared to a modern elegant serif (or mix). + +\starttheme + If marketing and fashion of the day dominate then a wrong decision can result + in dying pretty fast. +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Persistence] + +Around the turn of the century I had to replace my \CD\ player and realized that it +made more sense to invest in ripping the \CD's to \FLAC\ files and use a decent +\DAC\ to render the sound. This is a generic approach similar to processing +documents with \TEX\ and it looks as future proof as well. So, I installed a +virtual machine running SlimServer and bought a few SlimDevices, although by that +time they were already called SqueezeBoxes. + +What started as an independent supplier of hardware and an open source program +had gone the (nowadays rather predictable) route of a buy out by a larger company +(Logitech). That company later ditched the system, even if it had a decent share +of users. This \quotation {start something interesting and rely on dedicated +users}, then \quotation {sell yourself (to the highest bidder)} and a bit later +\quotation {accept that the product gets abandoned} is where open source can fail +in many aspects: loyal users are ignored and offended with the original author +basically not caring about it. The only good thing is that because the software +is open source there can be a follow up, but of course that requires that there +are users able to program. + +I have 5 small boxes and a larger transporter so my setup is for now safe from +extinction. And I can run the server on any (old) \LINUX\ or \MSWINDOWS\ +distribution. For the record, when I recently connected the 20 year old Cambridge +CD2 I was surprised how well it sounded on my current headphones. The only +drawback was that it needs 10 minutes for the transport to warm up and get +working. + +In a similar fashion I can still use \TEX, even when we originally started using +it with the only viable quality \DVI\ to \POSTSCRIPT\ backend at that time +(\DVIPSONE). But I'm not so sure what I'd done if I had not been involved in the +development of \PDFTEX\ and later \LUATEX . As an average user I might just have +dropped out. As with the \CD\ player, maybe someone will dust off an old \TEX\ +some day and maybe the only hurdle is to get it running on a virtual retro +machine. Although \unknown\ recently I ran into an issue with a virtual machine +that didn't provide a console after a \KVM\ host update, so I'm also getting +pessimistic about that escape for older programs. (Not seldom when a library +update is forced into the \LUATEX\ repository we face some issue and it's not +something the average user want (or is able to) cope with.) + +\starttheme + Sometimes it's hard to go extinct, even when commerce interfered at some + point. But it does happen that users successfully take (back) control. +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Freedom] + +If you buy a book originating in academia written and typeset by the author, +there is a chance that it is produced by some flavour of \TEX\ and looks quite +okay. This is because the author could iterate to the product she or he likes. +Unfortunately the web is also a source of bad looking documents produced by \TEX. +Even worse is that many authors don't even bother to set up a document layout +properly, think about structure and choose a font setup that matches well. One +can argue that only content matters. Fine, but than also one shouldn't claim +quality simply because \TEX\ has been used. + +I've seen examples of material meant for bachelor students that made me pretend +that I am not familiar with \TEX\ and cannot be held responsible. Letter based +layouts on A4 paper, or worse, meant for display (or e|-|book devices) without +bothering to remove the excessive margins. Then these students are forced to use +some collaborative \TEX\ environment, which makes them dependent on the quality +standards of fellow students. No wonder that one then sees dozens of packages +being loaded, abundant copy and paste and replace of already entered formulas and +interesting mixtures of inline and display math, skips, kerns and whatever can +help to make the result look horrible. + +\starttheme + Don't expect enthusiast new users when you impose \TEX\ but take away freedom + and force folks to cooperate with those with lesser standards. It will not + help quality \TEX\ to stay around. You cannot enforce survival, it just + happens or not, probably better with no competition or with a competition so + powerful that it doesn't bother with the niches. In fact, keeping a low + profile might be best! The number of users is no indication of quality, + although one can abuse that statistic selectively? +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Diversity] + +Diversity in nature is enormous. There are or course niches, but in general there +are multiple variants of the same. When humans started breeding stock or +companion animals diversity also was a property. No one is forcing the same dog +upon everyone or the same cow. However, when industrialization kicks in things +become worse. Many cows in our country share the same dad. And when we look at +for instance corn, tomatoes or whatever dominance is not dictated by what nature +figures out best, but by what commercially makes most sense, even if that means +that something can't reproduce by itself any longer. + +In a similar way the diversity of methods and devices to communicate (on paper) +at some point turns into commercial uniformity. The diversity is simply very +small, also in typesetting. And even worse, a user even has to defend +her|/|himself for a choice of system (even in the \TEX\ community). It's just +against nature. + +\starttheme + Normally something stays around till it no longer can survive. However, we + humans have a tendency to destroy and commerce is helping a hand here. In + that respect it's a surprise that \TEX\ is still around. On the other hand, + humans also have a tendency to keep things artificially alive and even + revive. Can we revive \TEX\ in a few hundred years given the complex code + base and Make infrastructure? +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Publishing] + +What will happen with publishing? In the production notes of some of my recently +bought books the author mentions that the first prints were self|-|published +(either or not sponsored). This means that when a publisher \quotation {takes +over} (which still happens when one scales up) not much work has to be done. +Basically the only thing an author needs is a distribution network. My personal +experience with for instance \CD's produced by a group of musicians is that it is +often hard to get it from abroad (if at all) simply because one needs a payment +channel and mail costs are also relatively high. + +But both demonstrate that given good facilitating options it is unlikely that +publishers as we have now have not much change of survival. Add to the argument +that while in Gutenbergs time a publisher also was involved in the technology, +today nothing innovative comes from publishers: the internet, ebook devices, +programs, etc.\ all come from elsewhere. And I get the impression that even in +picking up on technology publishers lag behind and mostly just react. Even +arguments like added value in terms of peer review are disappearing with the +internet where peer groups can take over that task. Huge amounts of money are +wasted on short|-|term modern media. (I bet similar amounts were never spend on +typesetting.) + +\starttheme + Publishers, publishing, publications and their public: as they are now they + might not stay around. Lack of long term vision and ideas and decoupling of + technology can make sure of that. Publishing will stay but anyone can + publish; we only need the infrastructure. Creativity can win over greed and + exploitation, small can win over big. And tools like \TEX\ can thrive in + there, as it already does on a small scale. +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title=Understanding] + +\quotation {Why do you use \TEX?} If we limit this question to typesetting, you +can think of \quotation {Why don't you use \MSWORD ?} \quotation {Why don't you use +Indesign?}, \quotation {Why don't you use that macro package?}, \quotation {Why +don't you use this \TEX\ engine?} and alike. I'm sure that most of the readers +had to answer questions like this, questions that sort of assume that you're not +happy with what you use now, or maybe even suggest that you must be stupid not to +use \unknown + +It's not that easy to explain why I use \TEX\ and|/|or why \TEX\ is good a the +job. If you are in a one|-|to|-|one (or few) sessions you can demonstrate its +virtues but \quote {selling} it to for instance a publisher is close to +impossible because this kind of technology is rather unknown and far from the +click|-|and|-|point paradigm. It's even harder when students get accustomed to +these interactive books from wherein they can even run code snippets although one +can wonder how individual these are when a student has the web as a source of +solutions. Only after a long exposure to similar and maybe imperfect alternatives +books will get appreciated. + +For instance speaking of \quotation {automated typesetting} assumes that one +knows what typesetting is and also is aware that automated has some benefits. A +simple \quotation {it's an \XML\ to \PDF\ converter} might work better but that +assumes \XML\ being used which for instance not always makes sense. And while +hyphenation, fancy font support and proper justification might impress a \TEX\ +user it often is less of an argument than one thinks. + +The \quotation {Why don't you} also can be heard in the \TEX\ community. In the +worst case it's accompanied by a \quotation {\unknown\ because everybody uses +\unknown} which of course makes no sense because you can bet that the same user +will not fall for that argument when it comes to using an operating system or so. +Also from outside the community there is pressure to use something else: one can +find defense of minimal markup over \TEX\ markup or even \HTML\ markup as better +alternative for dissemination than for instance \PDF\ or \TEX\ sources. The +problem here is that old||timers can reflect on how relatively wonderful a +current technique really is, given changes over time, but who wants to listen to +an old|-|timer. Progress is needed and stimulating (which doesn't mean that all +old technology is obsolete). When I watched Endre eNerd's \quotation {The Time +Capsule} blu|-|ray I noticed an Ensoniq Fizmo keyboard and looked up what it was. +I ended up in interesting reads where the bottom line was \quotation {Either you +get it or you don't}. Reading the threads rang a bell. As with \TEX, you cannot +decide after a quick test or even a few hours if you (get the concept and) like +it or not: you need days, weeks, or maybe even months, and some actually never +really get it after years. + +\starttheme + It is good to wonder why you use some program but what gets used by others + depends on understanding. If we can't explain the benefits there is no + future for \TEX. Or more exact: if it no longer provide benefits, it will + just disappear. Just walk around a gallery in a science museum that deals + with computers: it can be a bit pathetic experience. +\stoptheme + +\stopsection + +{\bf Who knows \unknown} + +\stoptitle + +\stopdocument diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-style.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-style.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5ed934f2f --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-style.tex @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +\startenvironment musings-style + +\usemodule[abr-04] + +\setupbodyfont + [pagella] + +\setuplayout + [topspace=2cm, + header=0pt, + footer=1.5cm, + bottomspace=1cm, + width=middle, + height=middle] + +% \definecolor[maincolor] [darkyellow] +% \definecolor[extracolor][darkblue] + +\definecolor[maincolor] [middleorange] +\definecolor[extracolor][middleblue] + +\setuptype + [color=maincolor] + +\setuptyping + [color=maincolor] + +\setuphead + [color=maincolor] + +\setuphead + [chapter] + [style=\bfd] + +\setuphead + [chapter] + [after={\blank[3*line]}, + align=flushright, + command=\ChapterCommand] + +\starttexdefinition unexpanded ChapterCommand#1#2 + \hbox to \textwidth { + \hss + % title + #2 + \doifmode {*sectionnumber} { + % distance + \hskip10mm + % number + \struttedbox{\offset[x=-1mm,y=2.5mm]{\scale[height=2cm]{#1}}} + } + } +\stoptexdefinition + +\setuphead + [section] + [style=\bfb] + +\setuphead + [subsection] + [style=\bf, + before=\blank, + after=\blank] + +\setuppagenumbering + [alternative=doublesided] + +\setupfootertexts + [][{\getmarking[chapter]\hbox to 2em{\hss\pagenumber}}] + [{\hbox to 2em{\pagenumber\hss}\getmarking[chapter]}][] + +\setupwhitespace + [big] + +\setuplist + [chapter] + [width=3em, + before={\testpage[3]\blank}, + after={\blank[samepage]}, + color=maincolor, + style=bold] + +\setuplist + [section] + [width=3em, + before={\blank[nowhite]}, + after={\blank[nowhite]}] + +% \logo [MATHTYPE] {MathType} +% \logo [SYNCTEX] {Sync\TeX} + +\stopenvironment diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-titlepage.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-titlepage.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..33eb44d95 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-titlepage.tex @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +\environment musings-style + +\startcomponent musings-titlepage + +\startMPpage + + fill Page withcolor "maincolor" ; + + draw image ( + draw textext.bot("m") xysized (20mm, 85mm) shifted (point .8 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-10mm) ; + draw textext.bot("u") xysized (20mm, 60mm) shifted (point .7 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-25mm) ; + draw textext.bot("s") xysized (20mm, 50mm) shifted (point .6 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-45mm) ; + draw textext.bot("i") xysized (20mm,100mm) shifted (point .5 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0, 00mm) ; + draw textext.bot("n") xysized (20mm, 55mm) shifted (point .4 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-20mm) ; + draw textext.bot("g") xysized (20mm, 70mm) shifted (point .3 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-20mm) ; + draw textext.bot("s") xysized (20mm, 40mm) shifted (point .2 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-15mm) ; + ) shifted (0,-120mm) withcolor "white" ; + + draw image ( + draw textext.bot("c") xysized (20mm, 85mm) shifted (point .8 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-10mm) ; + draw textext.bot("o") xysized (20mm, 60mm) shifted (point .7 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-25mm) ; + draw textext.bot("n") xysized (20mm, 50mm) shifted (point .6 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-45mm) ; + draw textext.bot("t") xysized (20mm,100mm) shifted (point .5 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0, 00mm) ; + draw textext.bot("e") xysized (20mm, 55mm) shifted (point .4 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-20mm) ; + draw textext.bot("x") xysized (20mm, 70mm) shifted (point .3 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-20mm) ; + draw textext.bot("t") xysized (20mm, 40mm) shifted (point .2 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-15mm) ; + ) shifted (0,-10mm) withcolor "white" ; + + draw image ( + draw textext.bot("h") xysized (10mm, 20.0mm) shifted (point .75 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-10.0mm) ; + draw textext.bot("a") xysized (10mm, 22.5mm) shifted (point .70 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-20.0mm) ; + draw textext.bot("n") xysized (10mm, 27.5mm) shifted (point .65 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-12.5mm) ; + draw textext.bot("s") xysized (10mm, 30.0mm) shifted (point .60 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0, 0mm) ; + + draw textext.bot("h") xysized (10mm, 25mm) shifted (point .45 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-05.0mm) ; + draw textext.bot("a") xysized (10mm, 30mm) shifted (point .40 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-15.0mm) ; + draw textext.bot("g") xysized (10mm, 35mm) shifted (point .35 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-17.5mm) ; + draw textext.bot("e") xysized (10mm, 20mm) shifted (point .30 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-20.0mm) ; + draw textext.bot("n") xysized (10mm, 25mm) shifted (point .25 along (topboundary Page)) shifted (0,-10.0mm) ; + ) shifted (0,-235mm) withcolor "white" ; + +\stopMPpage + +\page[empty] + +\stopcomponent diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-whytex.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-whytex.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8f9b7de9b --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-whytex.tex @@ -0,0 +1,326 @@ +% language=uk + +\startcomponent musings-whytex + +\environment musings-style + +\startchapter[title={Why use \TEX ?}] + +\startsection[title={Introduction}] + +Let's assume that you know what \TEX\ is: a program that interprets a language +with the same name that makes it possible to convert (tagged) input into for +instance \PDF. For many of its users it is a black box: you key in some text, hit +a button and get some typeset result in return. After a while you start tweaking +this black box, meet other users (on the web), become more fluent and stick to it +forever. + +But now let's assume that you don't know \TEX\ and are in search of a system +that helps you create beautiful documents in an efficient way. When your +documents have a complex structure you are probably willing to spend some time on +figuring out what the best tool is. Even if a search lets you end up with +something called \TEX, a three letter word with a dropped E, you still don't +know what it is. Advertisement for \TEX\ is often pretty weak. It's rather easy +to point to the numerous documents that can be found on the web. But what exactly +does \TEX\ do and what are its benefits? In order to answer this we need to know +who you are: an author, editor, an organization that deals with documents or needs +to generate readable output, like publishers do. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={Authors}] + +We start with authors. Students of sciences that use mathematics don't have much +of a choice. But most of these documents hardly communicate the message that +\quotation {Everyone should use \TEX.} or that \quotation {All documents produced +by \TEX\ look great.} but they do advocate that for rendering math it is a pretty +good system. The source code of these documents often look rather messy and +unattractive and for a non|-|math user it can be intimidating. Choosing some +lightweight click|-|and|-|ping alternative looks attractive. +lightweight click|-|and|-|ping alternative looks attractive. + +Making \TEX\ popular is not going to happen by convincing those who have to write +an occasional letter or report. They should just use whatever suits them. On the +other hand if you love consistency, long term support, need math, are dealing +with a rare language or script, like to reuse content, prefer different styling +from one source, use one source for multiple documents, or maybe love open source +tools, then you are a candidate. Of course there is a learning curve but normally +you can master \TEX\ rather fast and once you get the hang of it there's often no +way back. But you always need to invest a bit beforehand. + +So what authors are candidates for \TEX ? It could be that \TEX\ is the only tool +that does the job. If so, you probably learned that from someone who saw you +struggle or had the same experience and wrote or talked about it somewhere. In +that case using \TEX\ for creating just one document (like a thesis) makes sense. +Otherwise, you should really wonder if you want to invest time in a tool that you +probably have to ditch later on as most organizations stick to standard +(commercial) word processing tools. + +Talking to customers we are often surprised that people have heard about \TEX, or +even used it for a few documents in college. Some universities just prescribe the +use of \TEX\ for reporting, so not much of a choice there. Memories are normally +rather positive in the sense that they know that it can do the job and that it's +flexible. + +User group journals, presentations at \TEX\ meetings, journals, books and manuals +that come with \TEX\ macro packages can all be used to determine if this tool +suits an author. Actually, I started using \TEX\ because the original \TEX book +had some magic, and reading it was just that: reading it, as I had no running +implementation. A few years later, when I had to write (evolving) reports, I +picked up again. But I'm not a typical user. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={Programmers}] + +When you are a programmer who has to generate reports, for instance in \PDF, or +write manuals, then \TEX\ can really be beneficial. Of course \TEX\ is not always +an obvious choice, but if you're a bit able to use it it's hard to beat in +quality, flexibility and efficiency. I'm often surprised that companies are +willing to pay a fortune for functionality that basically comes for free. +Programmers are accustomed to running commands and working in a code editor with +syntax highlighting so that helps too. They too recognize when something can be +done more efficiently. + +When you need to go from some kind of input (document source, database, +generated) to some rendered output there currently are a few endpoints: a +(dynamic) \HTML\ page, a \PDF\ document, something useable in a word processor, +or a representation using the desktop user interface. It's the second category +where \TEX\ is hard to beat but even using \TEX\ and \METAPOST\ for creating a +chart can make sense. + +There are of course special cases where \TEX\ fits in nicely. Say that you have +to combine \PDF\ documents. There are numerous tools to do that and \TEX\ is one. +The advantage of \TEX\ over other tools is that it's trivial to add additional +text, number pages, provide headers and footers. And it will work forever. Why? +Because \TEX\ has been around for decades and will be around for decades to come. +It's an independent component. The problem with choosing for \TEX\ is that the +starting point is important. The question is not \quotation {What tool should I +use?} but \quotation {What problem do I need to solve?}. An open discussion about +the objectives and possibilities is needed, not some checklist based on +assumptions. If you don't know \TEX\ and have never worked with a programmable +typesetting environment, you probably don't see the possibilities. In fact, you +might even choose for \TEX\ for the wrong reasons. + +The problem with this category of users is that they seldom have the freedom to +choose their tools. There are not that many jobs where the management is able to +recognize the clever programmer who can determine that \TEX\ is suitable for a +lot of jobs and can save money and time. Even the long term availability and +support is not an argument since not only most tools (or even apis) changes every +few years but also organizations themselves change ownership, objectives, and +personnel on a whim. The concept of \quote {long term} is hard to grasp for most +people (just look at politics) and it's only in retrospect that one can say +\quote {We used that toolkit for over a decade.} + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={Organizations}] + +Authors (often) have the advantage that they can choose themselves: they can use +what they like. In practice any decent programmer is able to find the suitable +tools but convincing the management to use one of them can be a challenge. Here +we're also talking of \quote {comfort zones}: you have to like a tool(chain). +Organizations normally don't look for \TEX. Special departments are responsible +for choosing and negotiating whatever is used in a company. Unfortunately +companies don't always start from the open question \quotation {We have this +problem, we want to go there, what should we do?} and then discuss options with +for instance those who know \TEX. Instead requirements are formulated and matches +are found. The question then is \quotation {Are these requirements cut in stone?} +and if not (read: we just omit some requirements when most alternatives don't +meet them), were other requirements forgotten? Therefore organizations can end up +with the wrong choice (using \TEX\ in a situation where it makes no sense) or +don't see opportunities (not using \TEX\ while it makes most sense). It doesn't +help that a hybrid solution (use a mix of \TEX\ and other tools) is often not an +option. Where an author can just stop using a tool after a few days of +disappointment, and where a programmer can play around a bit before making a +choice, an organization probably best can start small with a proof of concept. + +Let's take a use case. A publisher wants to automatically convert \XML\ files +into \PDF. One product can come from multiple sources (we have cases where +thousands of small \XML\ files combine into one final product). Say that we have +three different layouts: a theory book, a teachers manual and an answer book. In +addition special proofing documents have to be rendered. The products might be +produced on demand with different topics in any combination. There is at least +one image and table per page, but there can be more. There are color and +backgrounds used, tables of contents generated, there is extensive cross +referencing and an index. Of course there is math. + +Now let's assume an initial setup costs 20K Euro and, what happens often when the +real products show up, a revision after one year takes the same amount. We also +assume 10K for the following eight years for support. So, we end up with 120K +over 10 years. If one goes cheap we can consider half of that, or we can be +pessimistic and double the amount. + +The first year 10K pages are produced, the second year 20K and after that 30K per +year. So, we're talking of 270K pages. If we include customer specific documents +and proofing we might as well end up with a multiple of that. + +So, we have 120K Euro divided by 270K pages or about half an Euro per page. But +likely we have more pages so it costs less. If we double the costs then we can +assume that some major changes took place which means more pages. In fact we had +projects where the layout changed, all documents were regenerated and the costs +were included in the revision, so far from double. We also see many more pages +being generated so in practice the price per page drops below half an Euro. The +more we process the cheaper it gets and one server can produce a lot of pages! + +Now, the interesting bit of such a calculation is that the costs only concern the +hours spent on a solution. A \TEX\ based system comes for free and there are no +license costs. Whatever alternative is taken, even if it is as flexible, it will +involve additional costs. From the perspective of costs it's very hard to beat +\TEX. Add to that the possibility for custom extensions, long term usage and the +fact that one can adapt the system. The main question of course is: does it do +the job. The only way to find out is to either experiment (which is free), +consult an expert (not free, but then needed anyway for any solution) or ask an +expert to make a proof of concept (also not free but relatively cheap and +definitely cheaper than a failure). In fact, before making decisions about what +solution is best it might be a good idea to check with an expert anyway, because +more or less than one thinks might be possible. Also, take into account that the +\TEX\ ecosystem is often one of the first to support new technologies, and +normally does that within its existing interface. And there is plenty of free +support and knowledge available once you know how to find it. Instead of wasting +time and money on advertisement and fancy websites, effort goes into support and +development. Even if you doubt that the current provider is around in the decade +to come, you can be sure that there will be others, simply because \TEX\ attracts +people. Okay, it doesn't help that large companies like to out source to +far||far||away and expect support around the corner, so in the end they might +kill their support chain. + +When talking of \TEX\ used in organizations we tend to think of publishers. But +this is only a small subset of organizations where information gets transformed +into something presentable. For small organizations the choice for \TEX\ can be +easy: costs, long term stability, knowing some experts are driving forces. For +large organizations these factors seem (at least to us) hardly relevant. We've +(had) projects where actually the choice for using a \TEX\ based solution was (in +retrospect) a negative one: there was no other tool than this relatively unknown +thing called \TEX. Or, because the normal tools could not be used, one ended up +with a solution where (behind the scenes) \TEX\ is used, without the organization +knowing it. Or, it happened that the problem at hand was mostly one that demands +in|-|depth knowledge of manipulating content, cleaning up messy data, combining +resources (images or \PDF\ documents), all things that happen to be available in +the perspective of \TEX. If you can solve a hard to solve problem for them then +an organization doesn't care what tool you use. What does matter is that the +solution runs forever, that costs are controllable and above all, that it +\quotation {Just works.} And if you can make it work fast, that helps too. We +can safely claim that when \TEX\ is evaluated as being a good option, that in the +end it always works out quite well. + +Among arguments that (large) organizations like to use against a choice for \TEX\ +(or something comparable) are the size of the company that they buy their +solution from, the expected availability for support, and the wide|-|spread usage +of the tool at hand. One can wonder if it also matters that many vendors change +ownership, change products every few years, change license conditions when they +like, charge a lot for support or just abort a tool chain. Unfortunately when that +happens those responsible for choosing such a system can have moved on to another +job, so this is seldom part of an evaluation. For the supplier the other side of +the table is just as much of a gamble. In that respect, an organization that +wants to use an open source (and|/|or free) solution should realize that getting +a return on investment on such a development is pretty hard to achieve. So, who +really takes the risk for writing open source? + +For us, the reason to develop \CONTEXT\ and make it open is that it fits in our +philosophy and we like the community. It is actually not really giving us an +advantage commercially: it costs way more to develop, support and keep +up|-|to|-|date than it will ever return. We can come up with better, faster and +easier solutions and in the end we pay the price because it takes less time to +cook up styles. So there is some backslash involved because commercially a +difficult solution leads to more billable hours. Luckily we tend to avoid wasting +time so we improve when possible and then it ends up in the distributed code. +And, once the solution is there, anyone can use it. Basically also for us it's +just a tool, like the operating system, editor and viewer are. So, what keep +development going is mostly the interaction with the community. This also means +that a customer can't really demand functionality for free: either wait for it to +show up or pay for it (which seldom happens). Open source is not equivalent with +\quotation {You get immediately what you want because someone out there writes +the code.}. There has to be a valid reason and often it's just users and meetings +or just some challenge that drives it. + +This being said, it is hard to convince a company to use \TEX. It has to come +from users in the organization. Or, what we sometimes see with publishers, it +comes with an author team or acquired product line where it's the only option. +Even then we seldom see transfer to other branches in the organizations. No one +seems to wonder \quotation {How on earth can that \XML\ to \PDF\ project produce +whatever output in large quantities in a short period of time} while other (past) +projects failed. It probably relates to the abstraction of the process. Even +among \TEX\ users it can be that you demonstrate something with a click on a +button and that many years afterwards someone present at that moment tells you +that they just discovered that this or that can be done by hitting a button. I'm +not claiming that \TEX\ is the magic wand for everything but in some areas it's +pretty much ahead of the pack. Go to a \TEX\ user meeting and you will be surprised +about the accumulated diverse knowledge present in the room. It's user demand that +drives \CONTEXT\ development, not commerce. + +\stopsection + +\startsection[title={Choosing}] + +So, where can one find information about \TEX\ and friends? On the web +one has to use the right search keys, so adding \type {tex} helps: \typ {context +tex} or \typ {xml tex pdf} and so on. Can one make a fancy hip website, sure, but +it being a life|-|long, already old and mature environment, and given that it +comes for free, or is used low|-|budget, not much effort and money can be spent +on advertising it. A benefit is that no false promises and hypes are made either. +If you want to know more, just ask the right folks. + +For all kind of topics one can find interesting videos and blogs. One can +subscribe to channels on YouTube or join forums. Unfortunately not that many +bloggers or vloggers or podcasters come up with original material every time, and +often one starts to recognize patterns and will get boring by repetition of wisdom +and arguments. The same is true for manuals. Is a ten year old manual really +obsolete? Should we just recompile it to fake an update while in fact there has +been no need for it? Should we post twenty similar presentations while one can +do? (If one already wants to present the same topic twenty times in the first +place?) Maybe one should compare \TEX\ with cars: they became better over time +and can last for decades. And no new user manual is needed. + +As with blogs and vlogs advertising \TEX\ carries the danger for triggering +political discussions and drawing people into discussions that are not pleasant: +\TEX\ versus some word processor, open versus closed source, free versus paid +software, this versus that operating system, editor such or editor so. + +To summarize, it's not that trivial to come up with interesting information about +\TEX, unless one goes into details that are beyond the average user. And those +who are involved are often involved for a long time so it gets more complex over +time. User group journals that started with tutorials later on became expert +platforms. This is a side effect of being an old and long|-|term toolkit. If +you run into it, and wonder if it can serve your purpose, just ask an expert. + +Most \TEX\ solutions are open source and come for free as well. Of course if you +want a specific solution or want support beyond what is offered on mailing lists +and forums you should be willing to pay for the hours spent. For a professional +publisher (of whatever kind) this is not a problem, if only because any other +solution also will cost something. It is hard to come up with a general estimate. +A popular measure of typesetting costs is the price per page, which can range +from a couple of euro's per page to two digit numbers. We've heard of cases where +initial setup costs were charged. If not much manual intervention is needed a +\TEX\ solution mostly concerns initial costs. + +Let's return to the main question \quotation {Why use \TEX ?} in which you can +replace \TEX\ by one of the macro packages build on top of it, for instance +\CONTEXT. If an (somewhat older) organization considers using \TEX\ it should +also ask itself, why it wasn't considered long ago already? For sure there have +been developments in \TEX\ engines (in \CONTEXT\ we use \LUATEX) as well as +possibilities of macro packages but if you look at the documents produced with +them, there is not that much difference with decades ago. Processing has become +faster, some things have become easier, but new technologies have always been +supported as soon at they showed up. Advertising is often just repeating an old +message. + +The \TEX\ ecosystem was among the first in supporting for instance \OPENTYPE, and +the community even made sure that there were free fonts available. A format like +\PDF\ was supported as soon as it shows up and \TEX\ was the first to demonstrate +what advanced features were there and how way it was to adapt to changes. +Processing \XML\ using \TEX\ has never been a big deal and if that is a reason to +look at this already old and mature technology, then an organization can wonder +if years and opportunities (for instance for publishing on demand or easy +updating of manuals) have been lost. Of course there are (and have been) +alternative tools but the arguments for using \TEX\ or not are not much different +now. It can be bad marketing of open and free software. It can be that \TEX\ has +been around too long. It can also be that its message was not understood yet. On +the other hand, in software development it's quite common to reinvent wheels and +present old as new. It's never to late to catch on. + +\stopsection + +\stopchapter + +\stopcomponent diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e2787dc99 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings.tex @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +\environment musings-style + +\startproduct musings + +\component musings-titlepage + +\startfrontmatter + \component musings-contents + \component musings-introduction +\stopfrontmatter + +\startbodymatter + \component musings-children + \component musings-perception + \component musings-whytex + \component musings-staygo + \component musings-stability + \component musings-roadmap +\stopbodymatter + +\stopproduct |