Redesign of dlang.org

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:46:16PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 9:54 PM, bearophile wrote:
> >Walter Bright:
> >>I don't get the reason for doing this. Are they trying to save paper
> >>or something?
> >
> >They are often trying to save paper. Some conferences (and sometimes
> >even some journals) set a maximum limit of pages for submitted
> >papers.
> >
> 
> Don't they write them in Latex and then generate the PDF? You'd think
> it'd be trivial to generate the microscope version to send off to
> those who expect it, and then generate a proper one for actual
> reading. This isn't exactly 1970 typewriter-era, after all.

True. In theory, you could make your LaTeX document flexible enough to
produce two very different outputs depending on the occasion.  I have
done this before -- the Turing-complete macro system makes this very
easy to do. Of course, it also suffers from the downsides of macro
systems: it's very easy to screw up and end up with completely garbled
output. :P (And, if not done properly, can lead to your document
becoming a write-only mess that even you don't remember how it works --
LaTeX is very much like a programming language.) Which probably explains
why most people don't do it. Hmph.

OTOH, I believe journals nowadays actually give you a LaTeX template
that you're supposed to follow, and they greatly frown upon submissions
that don't conform to that template. So people are less likely to fiddle
with stuff that they normally would otherwise.


T

-- 
The trouble with TCP jokes is that it's like hearing the same joke over and over.