"Code Sandwiches"

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday 09 March 2011 23:15:01 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.2411.1299739219.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> 
> > On Wednesday 09 March 2011 22:18:53 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message
> >> news:mailman.2409.1299728378.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> >> 
> >> > On Wednesday 09 March 2011 13:30:27 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> >> But why is it that academic authors have a chronic inability to
> >> >> release
> >> >> any
> >> >> form of text without first cramming it into a goddamn PDF of all
> >> >> things?
> >> >> This is one example of why I despise Adobe's predominance: PDF is
> >> >> fucking useless for anything but printing, and no one seems to know
> >> >> it.
> >> >> Isn't it about time the ivory tower learned about Mosaic? The web is
> >> >> more than a PDF-distribution tool...Really! It is! Welcome to the
> >> >> mid-90's. Sheesh.
> >> > 
> >> > And what format would you _want_ it in? PDF is _way_ better than
> >> > having a
> >> > file
> >> > for any particular word processor. What else would you pick? HTML?
> >> > Yuck.
> >> > How
> >> > would _that_ be any better than a PDF? These are _papers_ after all,
> >> > not
> >> > some
> >> > web article. They're either written up in a word processor or with
> >> > latex.
> >> > Distributing them as PDFs makes perfect sense.
> >> 
> >> They're text. With minor formatting. That alone makes html better. Html
> >> is
> >> lousy for a lot of things, but formatted text is the one thing it's
> >> always
> >> been perfectly good at. And frankly I think I'd *rather* go with pretty
> >> much any word processing format if the only other option was pdf.
> > 
> > I'm afraid that I don't understand at all. The only time that I would
> > consider
> > html better than a pdf is if the pdf isn't searchable (and most papers
> > _are_
> > searchable). And I _definitely_ don't like dealing with whatever word
> > processor
> > format someone happens to be using. PDF is nice and universal. I don't
> > have to
> > worry about whether I have the appropriate fonts or if I even have a
> > program
> > which can read their word processor format of choice. I don't really have
> > any
> > gripes with PDF at all.
> 
> PDF: *Complete* inability to adapt appropriately to the viewing device,
> *completely* useless page breaks and associated top/bottom page margins in
> places that have absolutely *no* use for them, no flowing layout, frequent
> horizontal scrolling, poor (if any) linking, inability for the reader to
> choose the fonts/etc that *they* find readable. Oh, and ever tried reading
> one of those pdf's that use a multi-column layout? All of this together
> makes PDF the #1 worst document format for viewing on a PC. All for what?
> Increased accuracy the *few* times it ever gets printed? Outside of
> print-shops, pdf needs to die a horrible death.

LOL. It's _supposed_ to have a fixed look. That's part of what's so wonderful 
about it. You _know_ that it will look right every time. I think that it's quite 
clear that we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this one.

- Jonathan M Davis