[texworks] dvi -> dvips -> ps2pdf

[Paul A Norman]

Here is an interesting link (be advised I think it is also an
advertisement for a book) by Lukas Mathis a Swiss developer, talking
about concepts similar to the 'Keeping the entry barrier low, while
developing and enjoying "Extensible simplicity"! ' discussed earlier
in this thread.

"The Growing User and the Perennial Beginner" - Lukas Mathis
http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2011/08/09/the_growing_user_and_the_perennial_beginner/

Paul

On 15 July 2011 23:47, Paul A Norman <paul.a.norman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes thanks Phil,
>
> I was being deliberately generalised, it is hard to know where to draw
> the line in this area, and you have hit exactly the area I was trying
> to get at while not being specific on the detail of the thing(s) that
> was being talked about.
>
> There are definitely things that will "help lower the entry barrier" -
> but as I am for ever finding for myself, if I don't have a sense of
> what is actually going on in some of these processes, I can not
> understand why something has  not worked out as expected, or how I
> could enhance things for future better results.
>
> And to that end I never hesitate to ask the most basic questions
> myself to make sure or confirm that I do have a bit of a grasp of
> things.
>
> Perhaps if someone is only going to do one thesis or one simple
> publication and possibly is on *TeX because they have been directed to
> use it, then we should do all we can for that person to breeze in, use
> Tw and be able to breeze out happily with their nicely formatted
> document in hand - hamburger a la Mac Donald's style, instant no fuss
> service.
>
> Beyond that we need to move people to looking at gourmet burger making
> techniques themselves, or we will be forever cooking for them :)
>
> Keeping the entry barrier low, while developing and enjoying
> "Extensible simplicity"!
>
> Its a case by case, proposal by proposal, balancing act, or the
> interface can beceom overloaded, even the default fillings for the
> Typesetting Drop down box could become easily bloated beyond easy
> casual and sensible recognition of what is in there.
>
> In this specific discussion, if C++ developer load was ever lighter
> for a moment (ha ha -- actually in fact could it be scriptable?), it
> might be nice to explore whether typesetting 'processing tools' (Tw
> Preferences Tab-Typesetting) could be savable/loadable as separate
> units which could be wickied or done as an issue or something, and be
> identifiable and downloadable as individual txt files to be loaded in.
>
> Things like the following for example could be a named txt file,
> transferable to other users,  and so loadable.
>
> Name: XeLaTeX+MakeIndex+BibTeX
> Program: texify.exe
> --pdf
> --engine=xetex
> --tex-option=-synctex=1
> $fullname
>
> First two lines, prefixed as above, then third line and above are all arguments
>
> Then individual recipes :) could be shared around.  Would help,
> especially with more exotic hamburger tastes.
>
> paul
>
>
>
>
> On 15 July 2011 20:16, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
> <P.Taylor at rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Herbert Schulz wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 14, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Paul A Norman wrote:
>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On balance ...
>>>>
>>>> Once a person is starting to grow in confidence with Tw  and *TeX in
>>>> general, it really is just the "next steps" to learn what specific
>>>> things you need to do to get specific or needed results, no more
>>>> complicated than your grandmother  competently following a complex
>>>> recipe and making a fantastic result.
>>>>
>>>> Or do we just want to be a "Mac Donalds" (TM) give me instant
>>>> hamburger (results) for no effort at all culture?
>>>>
>>>> I know I want to always be growing away from that mentality! And
>>>> learning how to make and enjoy consuming gourmet hamburgers!
>>>>
>>>> If we can coax Tw into helping people put there effort into useful
>>>> techniques, starting with 'lowering the entry level' while helping us
>>>> all transition to even better results - with better automation and
>>>> tools sets,  - way to go!
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>
>>> Howdy,
>>
>>> I'm not quite sure what you are referring to but typesetting, running
>>> bibtex, running makeindex, then multiple typesetting runs until all
>>> (cross-)references are resolved is interesting the first few times you do it
>>> and then it just  becomes tedious. Even worse when you don't do enough final
>>> runs and you end up with (cross-)references that point to the wrong page
>>> because you didn't typeset often enough for a full resolution.
>>
>>> Good Luck,
>>> Herb Schulz
>>> (herbs at wideopenwest dot com)
>>
>> I am not convinced that Paul was arguing against the benefits
>> of a procedural approach to a recurring need to "typeset, run
>> bibtex, run makeindex, then multiple typesetting runs until
>> all (cross-)references are resolved"; rather, I would argue,
>> he was probably advocating that the procedure should be user-
>> developed rather than canned, because the benefits of truly
>> /understanding/ why n1, n2, n3, ..., nm passes of each phase
>> are required cannot be overlooked.  In other words "give a
>> man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed
>> him for life".
>>
>> ** Phil.
>>
>