\title{Front-ends\Dash a backward glance}
\author[R. Allan Reese]{R. Allan Reese\\Hull University}
\begin{article}
Is \TeX{} too ugly to use? Is software a fashion item? Do users
know what they are doing, or do they just accept what `comes out
of the computer'?\Dash just some random thoughts brought on by
the talks on front-ends to \TeX\ at the October meeting of \ukt.

The originator of \TeX{} was (probably still is) happy to write
{\tt tex poo}, {\tt preview poo}, {\tt print poo} and so on; you
are referred to your {\sl Local Guide\/} for the exact names of
`preview' and `print'. But the command style of working is
associated with mainframes and old times. How can we make writing
\TeX ed documents more palatable?

Sebastian Rahtz described numerous front-ends to \TeX\ on DOS,
OS2, Windows, Unix and other platforms. Some \TeX ies have put a
{\em lot\/} of effort into integrating \TeX{} itself with
previewers, printer drivers and other software. The trouble is
that many of the good \TeX{} tools are original and freeware.
Each was written by an individual to express his (her) genius, so
they don't conform to a `corporate style'. On top of that, each
installation of \TeX{} has to fit on a system that is
idiocyncratically configured. Installing some of the free shells
may involve great effort\Dash and that's only to read the
documentation. Adapting the shell to your choice of \TeX ware
is even more difficult.

The primary need, said Sebastian (and I agree), is to have a good
editor. It's even better if the editor is `\TeX-aware', so it
will pick up small syntax errors as you go. It may `helpfully'
put in whole skeletons for logical structures. You could
distinguish between a `text editor' in which you type and see raw
\TeX{} code, and a `\TeX-processor' in which you type on a
WYSIWYG screen but can also see the \TeX{} code which the
program is generating. WYSIWYG is fashionable but I have doubts
that {\em most\/} typists will use a directly visual system to
express the logical structure of their text. I'm with Lamport.
Write {\em logical\/} text and then apply a style to express the
logic on an output device. I believe that CGYWYAFNWYW\Dash
Computers Give You What You Ask For Not What You Want.

However you type, the \TeX{} input has to be processed for a
chosen output device, including the screen for an accurate
preview. Those who can't bear to type the commands can buy fully
integrated \TeX{} systems. One of these is a good way to get
started. Sebastian mentioned the delights of working in Windows, though
he admitted in practice to running OS2. This system
allowed him to preview a \TeX ed document and fax the output
image just by clicking on a couple of menus (one being his list
of fax numbers).

Christopher Mabb was there to promote {\sl Scientific Word\/} but
unfortunately couldn't demonstrate it live. At a price of several
hundred pounds per copy, my interest is likely to stay `academic'
but one professor at my site uses a comparable system {\sl Leo}.
Both offer a happy-clicky interface which can be used to write
maths as visual patterns rather than as readable formulae.
Again, it may be old fashioned but I find it difficult to
articulate typeset maths from the page. \TeX{} is now a {\em lingua
franca} for `reading' or `speaking' maths in the same way that
computer languages precisely express algorithms. It was not clear
what a non-mathematician would gain from this interface but
WYSIWYG typing may be the approach for introducing {\em design},
leading on to \TeX{} as a specification tool.

For academics and others on shoe-string budgets, there are a number of
editors and front-ends in the public domain. Sebastian has looked at
several and thought {\sl \TeX shell\/} was the best integrated. I have
also fetched \TeX shell but failed to install it to use a Novell
fileserver\Dash ``{\em tempus fugit}'' and ``{\em temper} said {\em
  f*** it}''. The editor did look attractive. {\sl Redit\/} is a
similar editor but is not {\em quite\/} converted from German to
English. Both are based on the Borland Turbo Pascal look and feel with
a standard menu at the top of screen and pull down boxes for the next
level. So `standard' is this screen now, that I was able to use Redit
in German and deduce many of the translations of menu words in the
process. In the week of the conference I fetched {\sl ET\/} (described
in \TUB, Vol 14 No 2.\ July 1993) which is a text editor with {\em
  some\/} facilities for editing {\em some\/} mathematical constructs
visually.  I think I'll stick with ET for now, though many people
believe only in {\sl Emacs}.

ET by the way stands for `Edit \TeX' and is quite different from
{\sl TE\/} (Tiny Editor) that has been in the archives for years.
I liked TE until I found it hangs the PC if asked to edit a file
larger than 60K. You have to reboot the PC to continue and this
is not acceptable on a public service. Unfortunately I can't
trace either the source or a support person for TE.

The choice is wide and the jury is out, even though most of them
(users) haven't looked at the evidence and don't know what they
are trying. You can run \TeX{} by calling each component; you can
couple the components through a shell to save some typing; or you
can buy a commercial setup that runs everything behind the
scenes. Try one. Try them all and choose what suits you. Enjoy!

\end{article}