[dpwm]

> I would actually say it is easier than LaTeX, in the sense that it is more discoverable.

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]

Most of my questions on tex.SE are about ConTeXt, simply because all paths in ConTeXt are less explored than LaTeX. The frontier is nearer. But I have never failed to get a useful and informative solution from one of the handful of experts.

I wish I had sources for my other comments handy. If I have time I will try to dig some up.