Why should I *not* use the KOMA-Script classes?

Question

I've heard a lot of recommendations to use the KOMA-Script document classes in place of the base document classes. I appreciate that there is a lot of added functionality, and customisation is easier. But before I jump in, I would like to know of any potential problems with these classes.

In my particular case, I am writing a thesis - it's part of the way through, and I've been compiling using the base classes (report), and a bunch of packages. But in the interest of keeping the question broadly relevant, answers with problems that don't affect my use-case are more than welcome.

Answer 1

I can think only of two reason not to use the KOMA-classes:

1. That you have a dead line and not the time to handle the problems involved with switching to another class.

2. That someone requires that you use another class (e.g. via a template).

Answer 2

I would be hesitant about using the KOMA classes for your particular use case of writing a thesis. When writing a thesis I would suggest seeing if your university has an official, or unofficial, thesis class that meets the archaic and strict rules about formating that many universities impose. It is worth talking to others who have used LaTeX for their theses at your university in the past.

Answer 3

If you want to profit from KOMA-Script's added functionality, but are used to the "look and feel" (width/height of the text area, headings font/fontsize, header/footer etc.) of the standard classes, there's no straightforward class option to switch back to the standard layout. (In a sense, this is only consequential as one aim of KOMA-Script is to provide a typographically sound layout). Still, that's not a reason to shy away from KOMA-Script; the following settings produce a layout similar to that of the standard classes.

\documentclass[10pt,chapterprefix=true]{scrbook}

\areaset{345pt}{550pt}

\setkomafont{disposition}{\normalfont\bfseries}
\addtokomafont{chapterprefix}{\huge}
\addtokomafont{chapter}{\Huge}

\renewcommand*{\chapterheadstartvskip}{\vspace*{50pt}}
\renewcommand*{\chapterheadendvskip}{\vspace{40pt}}

\usepackage{etoolbox}

\makeatletter
\patchcmd{\@@makechapterhead}{.5\baselineskip}{20\p@}{}{}
\makeatother

\usepackage[markuppercase]{scrpage2}
\clearscrheadfoot
\ohead{\pagemark}
\ihead{\headmark}
\cfoot[\pagemark]{}
\pagestyle{scrheadings}

\usepackage{lipsum}

\begin{document}

\chapter{foo}

\section{foobar}

\lipsum[1-12]

\end{document}

Answer 4

For writing a thesis or any document that you do not have to share with other people KOMA script can be recommended without hesitations. Especially the great documentation enables you to adapt the style to your personal requirements.

If you want to exchange the text with someone else they might not be familiar with KOMA script or only have ancient version installed. Additionally almost every publisher or journal frowns upon using anything else but the standard article class or sometimes allow revtex but nothing else.

Answer 5

There simply is no reason to not use KOMA.

Let me elaborate it a bit further: I am not aware of any KOMA-specific reason to not use KOMA, besides the "standard reasons", most of which have been mentioned in the other answers. I call them "standard reasons", because they basically hold for any class or package X:

• If you use X and get used to its features it will be hard to go back (because it is different).
• You collaborator may not like X (because it is different).
• You might have to invest some time to use X (because it is different).
• You may not like X (because it is different).

Yes, KOMA is a bit different. That is the reason to use it.

Answer 6

If you have never used this class and if you are not able to learn by reading his manual, and if you do not know someone who can help you with this class then do not use this class!