Chemical structures with plain TeX
P.Taylor at rhul.ac.uk
Sat Jul 6 09:09:19 CEST 2019
Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> Presumably Phil is pissed off because Peter's solution requires Unix,
> the system he hates so much.
Phil is NOT "pissed off". He is sad (very sad, so sad that he weeps)
that even today, in the 21st century, we still communicate algorithms in
such impenetrable prose. R Shreevatsa demonstrated in a follow-up
message that the same algorithm can be expressed in language that is
accessible to mere mortals, even those with no familiarity whatsoever
with his preferred language of expression . Peter's formulation, while
arguably elegant, is cryptic beyond belief. And if Peter's were to
fail,for some unknown reason, how would one go about debugging it ? By
deliberately piping the output of one program into the input of another,
eschewing temporary files, no trace is left of the intermediate results,
so one cannot go back to inspect these in an attempt to identify the
source of the error.
Yes, I do not deny for one second that I loathe and detest Unix, but
that was not the motivation for posting my message — I was genuinely
saddened (OK, I didn't actually weep, that was a slight exaggeration)
that such a potentially useful solution to such an important (within the
universe of discourse) problem should be transmitted as such (sorry, I
cannot find a better phrase) complete and utter gibberish.
> This is not a good precondition for a fruitful discussion.
As the British Parliamentary system so clearly demonstrates.
** Phil (more in sorrow than in anger).
More information about the texhax