I've been looking for some time for a word processor to use for writing technical papers and I haven't really found one. What would really be nice to have is an editor that can handle mathematical expressions, code, and pseudo-code fairly well. I have yet to find one that works very well.
Does anyone have any recommendations?
I personally believe in LaTeX.
Benefits:
You can focus on content over form.
Use logical rather than semantic formatting (e.g., \methodname vs. just italic).
Easier to assemble large documents from multiple files.
Use text-based version control (CVS/SVN/etc.)
Widely used
Much more stable even on super-weak machines
Programmable. For example, I use macros to hide stuff, highlight stuff, obfuscate names by using a macro name with the real name but an obfuscated replacements.
See all the tips and tricks available on SO.
Output looks the same no matter which platform you compile on. Never had that luck with word, each version and each machine produces something slightly different.
My answer's long, so I want to say up front: I think you want OpenOffice Writer (I use v2.4, haven't tried 3.0 yet).
I've used Word with equation editor and LaTeX heavily in the past and OpenOffice Writer
more recently. I used the former two while writing my thesis.
LaTeX may still have advantages in quality of the output and in the ability to use text-based version control, but they're sharply diminished by OO Writer at this point.
Microsoft with equation editor, even the most recent versions, seems very weak still.
What I like about OpenOffice is that you can use the equation formatting mechanisms
in a mode where the window is split between the document you're writing and another
area where you can type very LaTeX-like formatting instructions. One of the big
strengths of LaTeX is that you get to type up something like $x \in S$ for "x is an element of S". OO Writer lets you do this and see the result.
Back when I wrote my thesis, LaTeX was preferable to Word with Eqn. Editor because of the length of my document (over 200 pages), the quality of the results, and the ease of specifying equations. LaTeX does have a disadvantage in simplicity of use that is made more acute by OO Writer.
That said, I'm sure I'd use OO Writer for conference to journal length articles (~8-15 pages v. ~15-40 pages) and also for shorter work. For thesis-length work, I'm not sure which I'd end up using: Word never worked so well for me on longer matter; I suspect OO Writer is better behaved but I don't have enough experience of it to make a firm judgement.
I like LyX (http://www.lyx.org/) -- it's a good tradeoff between "spending all your time writing your document" and "spending all your time writing markup". The most recent versions are even useable!
Apart from that, Word 2008 is actually pretty darn good, provided you use the styles and other "advanced" features.
I fully agree that LATEX is a good choice. I've used for paper in univ, including my master thesis. For LATEX I've been using Kile.
But nowadays there is interesting alternative which is DocBook with MathML extension.
LaTeX with TexMaker got me through grad school.
Depends on what you mean by "Word Processor". If you don't mind not having a WYSIWYG interface, I'd recommend LaTeX (http://www.latex-project.org/).
I wrote my final year Master's dissertation using it, which contained a lot of pseudocode, formulas, etc. Also outputs in a format fairly typical of technical papers.
I use FrameMaker.
MS Word with Mathtype. It has a number of advantages over the default Equation editor, including, but not limited to:
keyboard shortcuts
writing equations in tex mode then converting them
converting equations from "normal" to "linear" mode (the one you can use in your programs, you know a=b/c and such)
templates
no more latex. I can concentrate on the material, not the writing
Word with MS Equation for the mathematical sections.
I like DocBook and use FOP to create PDFs from it.
I use reStructuredText because it can be used in Trac, converted to PDF and HTML, have little markup overhead, and looks nice in its plain form too.
Microsoft Word is considered as the market standard word editor.
My suggestion is for you to use Authorea.
As a former postdoc (Astrophysics) and Ph.D. (Informatics) with 12+ years research experience (Harvard, CERN, UCLA), I have written technical papers for a long time. I have loved and hated LaTeX. For the past 2 years, I have worked with friends and colleagues at developing the next generation platform for writing technical/research documents collaboratively. It is called Authorea. From a technical standpoint Authorea is built on Git and takes LaTeX, Markdown, HTML (even JS, to include fancy d3.js in your papers). Bonus: you don't need to know LaTeX (or any other format) but you can easily add equations, tables, citations, and data to your papers. I hope you'll find it useful.
Related
I’ve completed the better part of a major development in Isabelle, and is wondering how best to go about writing the corresponding academic paper.
From Isabelle sources I can generate a somewhat idiosyncratic take on such a paper. However, the default rendering of theorems, lemmas and definitions seems almost certain to alienate reviewers.
The LaTeX-sugar theories help, but apparently only if I manually restate the entire theory using anti-quotations.
Are there examples of Isabelle developments underpinning publications that I can look to for inspiration on how best to proceed here?
I have done that in the past (for my master's thesis), there is only one case where you should do that: the documentation of Isabelle and the documentation of Isabelle developments (like the AFP).
There are some people who do that (Makarius Wenzel, e.g., https://sketis.net/2019/11), similarly the "Concrete Semantics". However, this is not a great solution.
The reasons not to do that:
The compilation takes much longer than using pdflatex, even if you base your work on an image of your development.
Unless you type LaTeX macros directly, you are much more limited in what you can do (LaTeX wise). And if you do type latex macros directly, you cannot produce HMTL output anymore. So the gain of Isabelle is limited.
Many conferences want to see LaTeX sources and they don't run Isabelle, so you will have to generate LaTeX at some point anyhow (and even possibly do some post-productions effects because Isabelle is not able to do some things).
You rarely want to use the exact theorem of Isabelle (LaTeXsugar can help, but it is not perfect).
What if you write the paper now and discover a typo you want to fix in 5 years? In 5 years, latex will still work. Isabelle2020 probably not.
Do all your co-authors use Isabelle on all their computers, including your laptop if you are on vacation and have an emergency fix to do?
And you will fight Isabelle a lot, for example:
text "
\begin{counterexample}
"
lemma True
by auto
text "
\end{counterexample}
"
does not work, because text is its own environment, so you need post-production effects.
Basically, use the snippets mechanism to extract LaTeX out of the theories and then use your favorite LaTeX editor.
The exams package is a really fantastic tool for generating exams from R.
I am interested in the possibilities of using it for (programming) assignments. The main difference from an exam is that besides solutions I'd also like hints to be included in the PDF / HTML output file.
Typically I put the hints for (sub)-questions in a separate section at the end of the PDF assignment (using a separate Latex section), but this requires manual labour. These are for students to consult if they need help getting started on any particular exercise, and it avoids having them look at the solutions directly for hints on how to start.
An assignment might look like:
Question 1
Question 2 ...
Question 10
Hints to all questions
I'd be open to changing the exact format as long it is possible to look up hints without looking up the answer, and it remains optional to read the hints.
So in fact I am looking for an intermediate "hints" section between the between the "question" and "solution" section, which is present for some questions but not for all.
My questions: Is this already possible? If not, how could this be implemented using the exams package?
R/exams does not have dedicated/native support for this kind of assignment so it isn't available out of the box. So if you want to get this kind of processing you have to ensure it yourself using LaTeX for PDF or CSS for HTML.
In LaTeX I think it should be possible to do what you want using the newfloat and endfloat packages in the LaTeX template that you pass to exams2pdf(). Any LaTeX template needs to provide {question} and {solution} environments, e.g., the plain.tex template shipped with the package has
\newenvironment{question}{\item \textbf{Problem}\newline}{}
\newenvironment{solution}{\textbf{Solution}\newline}{}
with the exercises embedded as
\begin{enumerate}
%% \exinput{exercises}
\end{enumerate}
Now instead of the \newenvironment{solution}... you could use
\usepackage{newfloat,endfloat}
\DeclareFloatingEnvironment{hint}
\DeclareDelayedFloat{hint}{Hint}
\DeclareFloatingEnvironment{solution}
\DeclareDelayedFloat{solution}{Solution}
This defines two new floating environments {hint} and {solution} which are then declared delayed floats. And then you would need to customize these environments regarding the text displayed within the questions at the beginning and the listing at the end. I'm not sure if this can get you exactly what you want, though, but hopefully it is a useful place to start from.
I'm in the process of documenting some of my functions for an R package I'm making.
I'm using roxygen markup, though that is largely irrelevant to my question.
I have put equations into my documentation using \deqn{...}. My question is:
Is there a way to cross-reference this equation later on?
For example, in my Rd file:
\deqn{\label{test}
y = mx + b
}
Can I later do something like:
Referring to equation \ref{test}, ...
I've tried \eqref{test}, \ref{test} (which both get "unknown macro" and don't get linked ), and also \link{test} (which complains it can't find function test because it's really just for linking to other functions).
Otherwise I fear I may have to do something hacky and add in the -- (1) and Refer to equation (1) manually within the \deqn etc in the Rd file...
Update
General answer appears to be "no". (awww...)
However, I can write a vignette and use "normal" latex/packages there. In any case, I've just noticed that the matrix equations I spent ages putting into my roxygen/Rd file look awful in the ?myFunction version of the help (they show up as just-about literal latex source). Which is a shame, because they look beautiful in the pdf version of the help.
#Iterator has pointed out the existence of conditional text, so I'll do ASCII maths in the .Rd files, but Latex maths in the pdf manual/vignette.
I'm compiling my comments above into an answer, for the benefit of others.
First, I do not actually know whether or not .Rd supports tagging of equations. However, the .Rd format is such a strict subset of LaTeX, and produces very primitive text output, that shoehorning extensive equations into its format could be a painful undertaking without much benefit to the user.
The alternative is to use package vignettes, or even externally hosted documentation (as is done by Hadley Wickham, for some of his packages). This will allow you to use PDFs or other documentation, to your heart's content. In this way, you can include screenshots, plots, all of the funkiest LaTeX extensions that only you have, and, most significantly, the AMS extensions that we all know and love.
Nonetheless, one can specify different rendering of a given section of documentation (in .Rd) based on the interface, such as text for the console, nice characters for HTML, etc., and conditional text supports that kind of format variation.
It's a good question. I don't know the answer regarding feasibility, but I had similar questions about documenting functions and equations together, and this investigation into what's feasible with .Rd files has convinced me to use PDF vignettes rather than .Rd files.
Basically I have created two MATLAB functions which involve some basic signal processing and I need to describe how these functions work in a written report. It specifically requires me to describe the algorithms using mathematical notation.
Maths really isn't my strong point at all, in fact I'm quite surprised I've even been able to develop the functions in the first place. I'm quite worried about the situation at the moment, it's the last section of writing I need to complete but it is crucially important.
What I want to know is whether I'm going to have to grab a book and teach myself mathematical notation in a very short space of time or is there possibly an easier/quicker way to learn? (Yes I know reading a book should be simple enough, but maths + short time frame = major headache + stress)
I've searched through some threads on here already but I really don't know where to start!
Although your question is rather vague, and I have no idea what sorts of algorithms you have coded that you are trying to describe in equation form, here are a few pointers that may help:
Check the MATLAB documentation: If you are using built-in MATLAB functions, they will sometimes give an equation in the documentation that describes what they are doing internally. Some examples are the functions CONV, CORRCOEF, and FFT. If the function is rather complicated, it may not have an equation but instead have links to some papers describing the algorithm, which may themselves have equations for the algorithm. An example is the function HILBERT (which you can also find equations for on Wikipedia).
Find some lists of common mathematical symbols: Some standard symbols used to represent common mathematical operations can be found here.
Look at some sample pseudocode to see how it's done: For algorithms you yourself have coded up, you'll have to write them out in equation or pseudocode form. A paper that I've used often in my work is Templates for the Solution of Linear Systems, and it has some examples of pseudocode that may be helpful to you. I would suggest first looking at the list of symbols used in that paper (on page iv) to see some typical notations used to represent various mathematical operations. You can then look at some of the examples of pseudocode throughout the rest of the document, such as in the box on page 8.
I suggest that you learn a little bit of LaTeX and investigate Matlab's publish feature. You only need to learn enough LaTeX to write mathematical expressions. Then you have to write Matlab comments in your source file in LaTeX, but only for the bits you want to look like high-quality maths. Finally, open the Matlab editor on your .m file, and select File | Publish.
See Very Quick Intro to LaTeX and check your Matlab documentation for publish.
In addition to the answers already here, I would strongly advise using words in addition to forumlae in your report to describe the maths that you are presenting.
If I were marking a student's report and they explained the concepts of what they were doing correctly, but had poor or incorrect mathematical notation to back it up: this would lose them some marks, but would hopefully not impede my understanding of the hard work they've put in.
If they had poor/wrong maths, with no explanation of what they meant to say, this could jeapordise my understanding of their entire project and cost them a passing grade.
The reason you haven't found any useful threads is because most of the time, people are trying to turn maths into algorithms, not vice versa!
Starting from an arbitrary algorithm, sometimes pseudo-code, along with suitable comments, is the clearest (and possibly only) representation.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I have been working on a few R packages for some general tools that aren't currently available in R: blogging, report delivery, logging, and scheduling. This led me to wonder: what are the most important things that people wish existed in R that currently aren't available?
My hope is that we can use this to pinpoint some gaps, and possibly work on them collaboratively.
I'm a former Mathematica junkie, and one thing that I really miss is the notebook style interface. When I did my research with notebooks, papers would almost write themselves as I did my analysis. But now that I'm using R, I find that documenting my work to be quite tedious.
For people that are not so familiar with Mathematica, you have documents called "notebooks" that can contain code, text, equations, and the results from executed code (which can be equations, text, graphics, or interactive tools). Everything can be neatly organized into styled subsections or sections that are collapsable. You can have multiple open documents that integrate with a single shared kernel.
While I don't think a full-blown Mathematica style interface is entirely necessary, some interactive document system that would support text (for description), code, code output, and embedded image output would be a real boon to researchers.
A Real-Time R package would be my choice, using C Streaming perhaps.
Also I'd like a more robust web development package. Nothing as extensive as Ruby on Rails but something a bit better than Sweave combined with R2HTML, that can run on RApache. I think this needs to be a huge area of emphasis for R in general.
I realize LaTeX is better markup for certain academia but in general I think HTML should be the markup language of choice. More needs to be done in terms of R Web Apps, so applications can be hosted on huge RAM remotely and R can start being used for SaaS data applications and other graphics choices.
Interfaces to any of the new-fangled 'Web 2.0' databases that use key-value pairs rather than the standard RDMS. A non-exhaustive list (in alphabetical order) would be
Cassandra Project
CouchDB
MongoDB
Project Voldemort
Redis
Tokyo Cabinet
and it would of course be nice if we had a DBI-alike abstraction on top of this. Jeff has started with RBerkeley but that use the older-school Oracle BerkeleyDB backend rather than one of those new things.
An output device which produces Javascript code, perhaps using the protovis library.
as a programmer and writer of libraries for colleagues, I was definitely missing a logging package, I googled and asked around, here too, then wrote one myself. it is on r-forge, here, and it s called "logging" :)
I use it and I'm obviously still developing it.
There are few libraries to interface with database in general, and there is not ORM library.
RMySQL is useful, but you have to write the SQL queries manually and there is not a way to generate them as in a ORM. Morevoer, it is only specific to MySQL.
Another library set that R still doesn't have, for me, it is a good system for reading command line arguments: there is R getopt but it is nothing like, for example, argparse in python.
A natural interface to the .NET framework would be awesome, though I suspect that that might be a lot of work.
EDIT:
Syntax highlighting from within RGui would also be wonderful.
ANOTHER EDIT:
R.NET now exists to integrate R with .NET.
A FRAQ package for FRequently Asked Questions, a la fortune(). R-help would be so much fun: "Try this, library(FRAQ); faq("lattice won't print"), etc.
See also.
A wiki package that adds wiki-like documentation to R packages. You'd have a inst/wiki subdirectory with plain text files in markdown, asciidoc, textile, with embedded R code. With the right incantation, these files would be executed (think brew and/or asciidoc packages), and the relevant output uploaded to a given repository online (github, googlecode, etc.). Another function could take care of synchronizing the changes made online, typically via svn or git.
Suddenly you have a wiki documentation for your package with reproducible examples (could even be hooked to R CMD check).
EDIT 2012:
... and now the knitr package would make this process even easier and neater
I would like to see a possibility to embed another programming language within R in a more straightforward way by the users. I give this as an example in some common-lisp implementations one could write a function with embedded C code like this:
(defun sample (x)
(ffi:c-inline (n1 n2) (:int :int) (values :int :int) "{
int n1 = #0, n2 = #1, out1 = 0, out2 = 1;
while (n1 <= n2) {
out1 += n1;
out2 *= n1;
n1++;
}
#(return 0)= out1;
#(return 1)= out2;
}"
:side-effects nil))
It would be good if one could write an R function with embedded C or lisp code (more interested in the latter) in a similar way.
A native .NET interface to RGUI. R(D)Com is based on COM, and it only allows to exchange matrices, not more complex structures.
I would very much like a line profiler. This exists in Matlab and Python, and is very useful for finding bits of code that take a lot of time or are executed more (or less) than expected. A lot of my code involves function optimizations and how many times something iterates may not be known in advance (though most iterations are constrained or specified).
The call stack is useful if all of your code is in R and is very simple, but as I recently posted about it, it takes a painstaking effort if your code is complex.
It's quite easy to develop a line profiler for a given bit of code. A naive way is to index every line (or just pre-specified sections) and insert a call to log proc.time() that line. In a loop, I simply enumerate sections of code and store in a 2 dimensional list the proc.time values for section i in iteration k. [See update below: this isn't actually a way to do a line profiler for all kinds of code.]
One can use such a tool to find hotspots, anomalies (e.g. code that should be O(n) but is really O(n^2)), code that may benefit from memoization (a line profiler doesn't tell you this, but it lets you know where to look), code that is mistakenly inside a loop, and more.
Update 1: Inserting a timing line between every function line is slightly erroneous: the definition of a line of code is not simply code separated by whitespace. Being able to parse the code into an AST is necessary for knowing where operations begin and end. As discussed in some of the answers to this question, there are some tools (namely, showTree and walkCode in the codetools package) for doing this. Simply applying a regular expression to source code would be a very bad thing to do.