Comment by jfoutz 8 years ago Knuth?i mean, i've never worked with him, but he's apparently great. 4 comments jfoutz Reply nailer 8 years ago He doesn't consider mathemetical flaws to be bugs. Not saying that makes him an asshole, but as a product person, this has has harmed TeX's ability to complete it goal of allowing anyone to create typeset documents. gjm11 8 years ago Would you care to elaborate? nailer 8 years ago Knuth's stance on bugs and TeXs goals are pretty well documented online. nailer 8 years ago Correcting self (post obviopusly doesn't make sense otherwise):Knuth doesn't consider NON mathemetical flaws to be bugs.
nailer 8 years ago He doesn't consider mathemetical flaws to be bugs. Not saying that makes him an asshole, but as a product person, this has has harmed TeX's ability to complete it goal of allowing anyone to create typeset documents. gjm11 8 years ago Would you care to elaborate? nailer 8 years ago Knuth's stance on bugs and TeXs goals are pretty well documented online. nailer 8 years ago Correcting self (post obviopusly doesn't make sense otherwise):Knuth doesn't consider NON mathemetical flaws to be bugs.
gjm11 8 years ago Would you care to elaborate? nailer 8 years ago Knuth's stance on bugs and TeXs goals are pretty well documented online.
nailer 8 years ago Correcting self (post obviopusly doesn't make sense otherwise):Knuth doesn't consider NON mathemetical flaws to be bugs.
He doesn't consider mathemetical flaws to be bugs. Not saying that makes him an asshole, but as a product person, this has has harmed TeX's ability to complete it goal of allowing anyone to create typeset documents.
Would you care to elaborate?
Knuth's stance on bugs and TeXs goals are pretty well documented online.
Correcting self (post obviopusly doesn't make sense otherwise):
Knuth doesn't consider NON mathemetical flaws to be bugs.