And that's excluding Word line-breaking which always looked rather poor to me: some lines were left very empty and others overcrowded. It just didn't look professional to me. Perhaps that was been fixed too.
And that's excluding Word line-breaking which always looked rather poor to me: some lines were left very empty and others overcrowded. It just didn't look professional to me. Perhaps that was been fixed too.
It's a personal preference, but I think it easily beats the typical LaTeX workflow for most people I know, which starts with copying an old project or some template with a ~50 line preamble and then constantly having to turn to Google for literally anything that's a bit out of the ordinary - including a lot of things that really shouldn't be extraordinary for a math software, like typesetting optimization problems, conditional expectation, argmin, table footnotes,... all of which have multiple options and most don't look great. Heck, you even need to define a theorem environment manually in the preamble to get them to look like you're used to.
Since you complain about moving around figures, in LaTeX the workflow for most users is trial-and-error multiple option combinations to get them roughly where you want them. Just check the Google autocomplete options for latex and tell me that people aren't confused by those things.
Anything becomes easy if you practice it enough, but I find both the 'onboarding' as well as the 'steady-state' productivity higher in Word, because you spend next to no time looking for how stuff works and instead focus on your content. Yes, LaTeX formatting generally looks better (eg spacing, LaTeX even lets you adjust the spacing between individual characters), but looks come second to content imho.