Home > Archive > Fortran > September 2006 > Fortran programmers's favorite report-writing tools
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Fortran programmers's favorite report-writing tools
|
|
|
| Hi
I've asked this problem elsewhere and didn't have a proper answer.
I'd like to ask your experience for variables or equations typing in
some technical report.
I use Mathtype & Microsoft word to create equation and also
variables,e.g. theta, alpha,
gamma. If I change this word file into two columns format, which is
required for some conference, these variables look very big.
I have asked this question in group of
microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...d869cb30b8e3f/#
and there's a response. I try it, but it failed. I think there are
only less people use Mathtype plus Word.
I think many Fortran programmers here do also have some experience
about writing.
What kind of writing software tools have you used and you are happy
about it to write variables or eqautions?
Any suggestion is appreciated.
Mike
| |
| Richard Maine 2006-09-14, 10:00 pm |
| Mike <acout@yam.com> wrote:
> What kind of writing software tools have you used and you are happy
> about it to write variables or eqautions?
I use LaTeX. There is pretty much nothing better when it comes to
equations. But if you are used to something like MS Word, you might not
like it. Tastes vary on the subject. Widely.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Greg Lindahl 2006-09-14, 10:00 pm |
| In article <1158287961.753285.176780@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Mike <acout@yam.com> wrote:
>I'd like to ask your experience for variables or equations typing in
>some technical report.
TeX, of course.
-- greg
| |
| Kamaraju Kusumanchi 2006-09-14, 10:00 pm |
| Mike wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've asked this problem elsewhere and didn't have a proper answer.
> I'd like to ask your experience for variables or equations typing in
> some technical report.
I used to use tex, latex etc., But all my personal documents are now
written in texmacs. It is still new (so there might be some bugs). But I
can usually finish my job in half the time as it might take if I were to
do it in latex. Besides typesetting text, texmacs also provides a GUI
for various software such as maxima, mathematica, axiom, octave,
gnuplot, python etc., It also has built in environment to draw figures etc.,
Texmacs' home page is at http://www.texmacs.org/index.php3
hth
raju
--
http://kamaraju.googlepages.com/cornell-bazaar
http://groups.google.com/group/cornell-bazaar/about
| |
|
|
| Pierre Asselin 2006-09-15, 8:01 am |
| Mike <acout@yam.com> wrote:
> I've asked this problem elsewhere and didn't have a proper answer.
> I'd like to ask your experience for variables or equations typing in
> some technical report.
Latex, usually with the amsmath package.
--
pa at panix dot com
| |
| Jugoslav Dujic 2006-09-15, 8:01 am |
| Mike wrote:
| Hi
|
| I've asked this problem elsewhere and didn't have a proper answer.
| I'd like to ask your experience for variables or equations typing in
| some technical report.
|
| I use Mathtype & Microsoft word to create equation and also
| variables,e.g. theta, alpha,
| gamma. If I change this word file into two columns format, which is
| required for some conference, these variables look very big.
I use the same combination without much problems, apart from usual
glitches. Are you aware that:
* There is Size/Define... option when in Equation editor/Mathtype
mode, which lets you define the sizes for all basic symbol
classes (alas, it "sticks" to the computer rather than to
the document, so you have to enter every equation to apply it).
* There is a convenient shorcut in Word, Ctrl+Shift+Q (sorry, I
dunno for which menu item), which acts as a prefix for an inline
Gr letter (Ctrl+Shift+Q,Shift+W gives you capital Omega, etc.)
* Ctrl+=, Ctrl+Shift+= toggle subscript/superscript mode in Word
(just in case you need it inline rather as an equation)
--
Jugoslav
___________
www.xeffort.com
Please reply to the newsgroup.
You can find my real e-mail on my home page above.
| |
| Jan Vorbrüggen 2006-09-15, 7:00 pm |
| >>What kind of writing software tools have you used and you are happy
> I use LaTeX. There is pretty much nothing better when it comes to
> equations.
Well, there are various packages that make using LaTeX easier - I use
LyX for the purpose. It does have its idiosyncrasies, but works quite
well and is very flexible.
But yes, for anything remotely mathematical, use some derivative of TeX.
Heck, any typesetting task that requires some form of programming can
easily (IMO 8-)) be done in TeX.
Jan
| |
| Michael Prager 2006-09-15, 7:00 pm |
| "Mike" <acout@yam.com> wrote:
> I think many Fortran programmers here do also have some experience
> about writing.
> What kind of writing software tools have you used and you are happy
> about it to write variables or eqautions?
I use LaTex. Besides handling math better than anything else,
it has an excellent cross-reference system, and it is not
subject to the problems one encounters when trying to use old
word-processor files. That is, the file format is fixed
(ASCII). Also, it can produce quite attractive output.
Nonetheless, LaTeX is like many computer tools: formerly
difficult problems become trivial, but some simple things become
difficult. For example, seemingly minor formatting changes can
require some effort to implement. But once it's done, it's done
forever.
Another nice thing about LaTeX is how well it can interface with
other systems. We run models in Fortran (and other languages),
transfer the output to the R statistic system, and program R to
generate tables and figures. The files containing them are
included directly into our LaTeX documents.
In summary, it will take some time to become proficient in
LaTeX, but I think it's worth the investment, particularly if
you are writing about anything mathematical.
--
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC
Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply.
* Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise.
* Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.
| |
| Craig Powers 2006-09-15, 7:00 pm |
| Mike wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've asked this problem elsewhere and didn't have a proper answer.
> I'd like to ask your experience for variables or equations typing in
> some technical report.
>
> I use Mathtype & Microsoft word to create equation and also
> variables,e.g. theta, alpha,
> gamma. If I change this word file into two columns format, which is
> required for some conference, these variables look very big.
>
> I have asked this question in group of
> microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
> http://groups.google.com/group/micr...d869cb30b8e3f/#
> and there's a response. I try it, but it failed. I think there are
> only less people use Mathtype plus Word.
>
> I think many Fortran programmers here do also have some experience
> about writing.
> What kind of writing software tools have you used and you are happy
> about it to write variables or eqautions?
LaTeX.
If you want an "easy" intro to it, LyX is a nice LaTeX-based editor that
will give you wysiwym equations and otherwise a better "in-progress"
view of your document.
| |
| George N. White III 2006-09-16, 8:00 am |
| Many people have mentioned LaTeX, but it is worth mentioning ConTeXt,
which is not as widely used as LaTeX, but offers more flexibilty and
supports multiple output forms (e.g., print or screen) from a single
source document. There are sample documents on http://www.pragma-ade.com.
ConTeXt is included in most current TeX systems (e.g., MikTeX, TeX Live).
In the past couple years ConTeXt modules to support bibtex and AMS-style
maths have been added, so it is worth considering, particularly if the
alternative is to write your own LaTeX style. I was involved in one
report series where the initial design was created in PageMaker, then
implemented in ConTeXt to faciliate reuse of existing (plain) TeX
documents, and recently converted to a LaTeX style because that is what
authors are using.
I didn't see any mention of literate programming techniques. I used LP
(fweb) to successfully port an existing system from CDC, after two
previous attempts had failed. I use Eitan Gurari's lightweight protex LP
system <http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~gura...ml/LitProg.html> with
LaTeX or ConTeXt, but it lacks the indexing capabilities of a full-fledged
system like fweb.
A few years ago, anyone getting an advanced degree in a field that
involves writing Fortran programs would have used LaTeX. Some
organizations have a formal or informal template that is used over and
over for each new document, and will have a collection of idioms for the
maths expressions that occur in a particular field.
Today, however, many people get advanced degrees using Win32
exclusively, have done all their writing using MS Office, and have a
collection of existing documents from which commonly used maths
expressions can be copied into the next document. Without colleagues who
can provide templates and idioms, switching to LaTeX represents a
significant investment of time and energy. There are many LaTeX templates
on the web, both at publisher's sites and in the CTAN (Comprehensive
TeX Archive Network) sites, but if you only think about using (La)TeX to
format documents, you are missing many of the benefits.
--
George N. White III <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca>
| |
| Brooks Moses 2006-09-16, 7:02 pm |
| George N. White III wrote:
> I didn't see any mention of literate programming techniques. I used LP
> (fweb) to successfully port an existing system from CDC, after two
> previous attempts had failed. I use Eitan Gurari's lightweight protex LP
> system <http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~gura...ml/LitProg.html> with
> LaTeX or ConTeXt, but it lacks the indexing capabilities of a full-fledged
> system like fweb.
Well, now that you've mentioned literate programming (which, in my
opinion, is a quite useful thing sometimes, but doesn't have that much
to do with writing reports as in the original question), I'll put in a
small plug for a tool I wrote to put LaTeX comments in Fortran 95
programs, and produce literate-programming-style typeset output from
them. As literate programming tools go, it's fairly lightweight, but I
think it's quite sufficient to be useful, and the files don't require
preprocessing to compile so it's easy to add to existing code.
Download here:
http://files.dpdx.net/tex/f95totex/
Sample typeset output:
http://files.dpdx.net/tex/f95totex/f95totex.pdf
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
| |
| blmblm@myrealbox.com 2006-09-19, 7:02 pm |
| In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609160832570.7600@cerberus.cwmann.nowhere>,
George N. White III <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
[ snip ]
> but if you only think about using (La)TeX to
> format documents, you are missing many of the benefits.
Hm ....
Long-time LaTeX user here, not using it for much but formatting
documents and wondering what kinds of things you have in mind --
something involving generating LaTeX input automatically maybe?
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
| |
| mvukovic@nycap.rr.com 2006-09-19, 7:02 pm |
|
blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609160832570.7600@cerberus.cwmann.nowhere>,
> George N. White III <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>
> Hm ....
>
> Long-time LaTeX user here, not using it for much but formatting
> documents and wondering what kinds of things you have in mind --
> something involving generating LaTeX input automatically maybe?
>
> --
> B. L. Massingill
> ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
What a bunch of loosers we all are. Using a passe computer language
and writing documentation an 80's (pre wisywig) document generation
system.
That, of course is an outdated point of view, considering fortran 95
and 03, and the modern additions to LaTeX.
As to the original poster, if he does consider LaTeX, the comp.text.tex
user group is very responsive. Both in a positive manner for well
posed questions with no obivous and easily accesible answers. And in a
negative manner, if the answer to the question can be obtain by some
basic searches.
Mirko
(Instead of bungee cord jumping, I write in LaTeX to get my adrenaline
rush. And instead of infinite freedom of C/C++, I use fortran)
| |
| Brooks Moses 2006-09-19, 7:02 pm |
| mvukovic@nycap.rr.com wrote:
> As to the original poster, if he does consider LaTeX, the comp.text.tex
> user group is very responsive. Both in a positive manner for well
> posed questions with no obivous and easily accesible answers. And in a
> negative manner, if the answer to the question can be obtain by some
> basic searches.
Honestly, I find that comp.text.tex generally responds in a positive
manner even in the latter case, though often the fact that the answer
could have been obtained by basic searches is pointed out -- in hopes
that the questioner will learn what sorts of questions can be answered
that way. Rather like this group, in fact.
But it's possible that you and I have different opinions on whether or
not an answer of (for instance) just a link to a relevant FAQ entry is a
positive or negative response. :)
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
| |
| mvukovic@nycap.rr.com 2006-09-20, 7:01 pm |
|
Brooks Moses wrote:
> mvukovic@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>
> Honestly, I find that comp.text.tex generally responds in a positive
> manner even in the latter case, though often the fact that the answer
> could have been obtained by basic searches is pointed out -- in hopes
> that the questioner will learn what sorts of questions can be answered
> that way. Rather like this group, in fact.
>
> But it's possible that you and I have different opinions on whether or
> not an answer of (for instance) just a link to a relevant FAQ entry is a
> positive or negative response. :)
>
> - Brooks
>
My original post was a bit too much tongue-in-ch. Indeed, my
experience with comp.text.tex is overwhelmingly positive.
Mirko
>
> --
> The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
| |
| mvukovic@nycap.rr.com 2006-09-20, 7:01 pm |
|
Brooks Moses wrote:
> George N. White III wrote:
>
> Well, now that you've mentioned literate programming (which, in my
> opinion, is a quite useful thing sometimes, but doesn't have that much
> to do with writing reports as in the original question), I'll put in a
> small plug for a tool I wrote to put LaTeX comments in Fortran 95
> programs, and produce literate-programming-style typeset output from
> them. As literate programming tools go, it's fairly lightweight, but I
> think it's quite sufficient to be useful, and the files don't require
> preprocessing to compile so it's easy to add to existing code.
>
> Download here:
> http://files.dpdx.net/tex/f95totex/
>
> Sample typeset output:
> http://files.dpdx.net/tex/f95totex/f95totex.pdf
>
> - Brooks
>
>
> --
> The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Many have probably found it ironic that we are using essentially the
same input method as when fortran was first invented. We are
transcribing the formula from a math notation to a fortran notation,
and the compiler is then translating it into machine code.
To me, a good candidate for a formulat translator seems to be texmacs.
It is a WYSIWYG math editor. I have not used it, but from what I
understand, it can accept plug-ins that translate the texmacs contents
to other formats. We are only missing an inspired wizard to program
the plug-in to translate texmacs to fortran.
In daily work, one would specify the mathematical problem in texmacs,
where one would use normal notation. The file would be exported to
fortran, and one would _try_ to compile it. I admit that translating
the compiler warnings to texmacs' file is next to impossible. But a
good intermediate step is looking at the generated fortran code for
clues.
I suspect that many compiling errors can be eliminated if a consistant
syntax is used. For example, vectors are bold-face, reals are roman,
integers italic, etc. The translator would then automatically declare
the variable type.
Likewise (I may be on shaky ground here) a custom type variable can be
looked upon as a finite set of items. (I am trying here to use
standard math notation for the programing concepts.)
Also, since any well-posed math problem would specify the dimensions of
variables in the problem, a well-posed texmacs file should have enough
information for a succesfull compilation.
And now, back to emacs, and mid 1950's programming notation :-)
Mirko
|
|
|
|
|