Python vs C++

[Paul Rudin]

Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:56 PM, dieter <dieter at handshake.de> wrote:
>> Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> writes:
>>> Frankly, I wouldn't write OO in anything, because I think the entire
>>> concept of a WYSIWYG editor is flawed.
>>
>> That would limit (so called) office applications to experts only.
>> But the success of these applications relies on the fact, that
>> even a complete novice can immediately use them. For "non-experts"
>> WYSIWYG editors are important.
>
> People say that. But WYSIWYG editors are the primary cause of
> frustrated yelling from the far end of the house, in my experience. I
> think they're an attractive nuisance. They're complicated to get right
> ("pure" WYSIWYG is useless, so you have to balance the visual benefit
> of being close to the result against the utility of seeing some of the
> non-printing information), and non-modular. With a text editor +
> compiler concept (whether the compiler's language is as big and
> complex as LaTeX or as simple as ReST), you can change editors without
> breaking anything. You don't like Libre Office Writer? Tough, there's
> no real alternative if you want to work on LO files.
>

The other problem is that because people are so used to using Word for
all text preparation we end up with Word files being used to carry
content for which plain text is just fine and would be preferable.

The conflation of text editing / word processing / desk top publishing
is problematic on a lot of levels.

I'm unconvinced is that e.g. LaTeX is inherently more "expert" that Word
for simple document preparation. It's mostly a question of familiarity.