3 ms·

Try writing a 300 page book in HTML, create citations and bibliographies, table of contents etc. Then convert it to a pdf, say using Pandoc and then you will ha

by yannis 10y ago

Try writing a 300 page book in HTML, create citations and bibliographies, table of contents etc. Then convert it to a pdf, say using Pandoc and then you will have a better understanding where TeX/LaTeX fits in. Write also some complicated formulae using MathML. Save the document and render it again in 30 years! TeX was designed to typeset a document always the same way on any machine that could run it. You can typeset any of Knuth's papers from the 80s and they can still compile today. Maths as Barbara is fond of saying has a long shelf life.

amelius 10y ago
I'm not saying that HTML is totally suitable, but a slight modification of it could be, and it would be a lot simpler to use than TeX. And who says that it could not be rendered in the same way in 30 years? By the way, the one thing that disappoints me most about LaTeX is that you often cannot nest one environment in another without running into issues. In HTML the "composability" is much better.
- taeric 10y ago
  Have you ever looked at "bare" latex? It really isn't any more complicated than html. Especially early html. But you are being somewhat naïve on the render in thirty years point. Html from two years so probably renders differently today. Never mind how different it is on machine that is rendering it. So, could someone have made a simple one? Maybe. Evidence looks unlikely. Plenty have tried.
  - amelius 10y ago
    Well, I'm not so sure if LaTeX renders the same in 30 years, given all the packages and their dependencies, that might also change. In fact, I'm not sure the document will even still compile by then.
    - taeric 10y ago
      If be surprised if latex didn't compile. Maybe people today make packages that break, buy I doubt it. The reason there are so many packages is because changes should only fix bugs. Not change current working behaviour. So bugs are typically defined as clear crashes.

by yannis 10y ago

amelius 10y ago

I'm not saying that HTML is totally suitable, but a slight modification of it could be, and it would be a lot simpler to use than TeX. And who says that it could not be rendered in the same way in 30 years? By the way, the one thing that disappoints me most about LaTeX is that you often cannot nest one environment in another without running into issues. In HTML the "composability" is much better.

taeric 10y ago
Have you ever looked at "bare" latex? It really isn't any more complicated than html. Especially early html. But you are being somewhat naïve on the render in thirty years point. Html from two years so probably renders differently today. Never mind how different it is on machine that is rendering it. So, could someone have made a simple one? Maybe. Evidence looks unlikely. Plenty have tried.
- amelius 10y ago
  Well, I'm not so sure if LaTeX renders the same in 30 years, given all the packages and their dependencies, that might also change. In fact, I'm not sure the document will even still compile by then.
  - taeric 10y ago
    If be surprised if latex didn't compile. Maybe people today make packages that break, buy I doubt it. The reason there are so many packages is because changes should only fix bugs. Not change current working behaviour. So bugs are typically defined as clear crashes.