Mojca Miklavec mojca.miklavec1 at email.si
Wed Jan 19 10:05:03 CET 2005

Larry Siebenmann wrote:

> I hope metafont is just as welcome on the metapost list as 
> metapost has been on the metafont list. Simply a *meta* list 
> would be another solution.

Laurence Finston wrote:

 > There are people interested in MF, so I think it's worthwhile to
 > maintain the list.  I think a single list would be a good idea, too,
 > but it shouldn't be called `metapost at tug.org'.

I don't think metafont is dead, it's just the fact that almost everyone 
needs some images every now and then and there are extremely rare people 
who really *need to* and *know how* to design nice-looking or any other 
exotic fonts.

(Comparing the number of
     (La)TeX/ConTeXt -> metapost users -> metafont users
is just like comparing the number of
     Office users -> Photoshop/CorelDraw users -> TrueType font designers

But I agree that there were a couple of years between when I started to 
use LaTeX and when I first heard about meta[whatever]. There were mostly 
ConTeXt manuals that gave me a hint about that. People to which I show 
the manuals are mostly impressed (plenty of LaTeX enthusiasts who never 
have heard about Meta, but gave up using \begin{picture} ... 
\end{picture}, thinking that pictures in LaTeX are something to be 
afraid of ... just as I did at the very beginning).

Metafont is not dead, but its mailing list seems to be. So I still don't 
see any reason for not making a meta at tug.org mailing list and simply 
transferring the users from both lists there (metafonters won't complain 
about the name, metaposters won't become afraid and even metafunners 
will find some place here -). It will lead to some confusion at the 
beginning, but if that can satisfy the majority of users it's maybe 
worth it.


More information about the metapost mailing list