I have used ConTeXt a fair amount and I like it quite a bit. I would actually say it is easier than LaTeX, in the sense that it is more discoverable. After you use it for a bit, you see that the macros are all built on each other in predictable ways, so they all tend to take the same options and achieve similar effects. In LaTeX, the answer to your questions is usually "there's a package for that," whereas in ConTeXt, the answer is often "this macro takes the same options as this other macro, so just pass them in."What is different about ConTeXt is the prevailing attitude towards using plain TeX from it. LaTeX really seems to consider plain TeX quite unsafe. I suspect this is because it is hard to build a resilient declarative system on highly weird and procedural TeX. ConTeXt, on the other hand, kind of encourages you to use TeX directly. So that led me to learning more about plain TeX, which now seems much less scary to me than when I was using LaTeX.
dpwm|7 years ago
Agreed. I think what I was trying to say is that LaTeX will have more answers on Stack Overflow. However, once you've found the command (and you can get an awful long way with the ten listed at the beginning of the reference manual) then the options are well documented.
> What is different about ConTeXt is the prevailing attitude towards using plain TeX from it. LaTeX really seems to consider plain TeX quite unsafe.
This is very interesting. I've found the same difference but in the opposite way. I've had to resort to using plain TeX in LaTeX quite a bit, usually buried in an environment or a command, to achieve what I want. And yes, it can be fragile, but sometimes it is the only way without using KOMA-Script.
I've found that ConTeXt has usually already considered what I want to do as a use case, because its scope is quite a bit more broad than LaTeX.
fusiongyro|7 years ago
I wish I had sources for my other comments handy. If I have time I will try to dig some up.