Timothy Murphy <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> I still think that if you want to persuade people like me of the
> virtues of eTeX you need to descend to our level, and show actual
> advantages in real LaTeX programs (including packages) which we can
> appreciate.

To put it bluntly: why would I need to persuade people like you? The
question of the right tool for the right job needs to get decided by
the people _doing_ the job.  I am merely telling those guys that they
should think about some plan to eventually stop shooting themselves in
the foot more than necessary for the imagined sake of people like you
that say "what has been good enough for Knuth is good enough for us."
Fine, but then you should be using plain TeX.  I presume that your
decision stems from the perceived buglessness of TeX.  So what?  LaTeX
contains hundreds of bugs that are triggered not infrequently.  If a
new engine has 10 bugs not hitherto discovered, and it will help
simplify LaTeX programming to a degree that several dozens of bugs
don't come into being in the first place, the sane choice is to go
with fewer bugs.  LaTeX has outgrown TeX painfully already.  It will
also outgrow eTeX, but if your children outgrow their shoes, you
don't wait until you expect their feet to never grow anymore before
you buy new shoes.

> It's not enough to say that there are a few people living on top of
> Mount Everest whose lives would be greatly simplified.

Unless those people are working for you.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum