6 ms·

>Take your average computer science graduate from the last ten years. Do you think anyone would be remotely able to understand what is going on there? Yes, you

by konjin 6y ago

>Take your average computer science graduate from the last ten years. Do you think anyone would be remotely able to understand what is going on there? Yes, you literally read the literate program of TeX and understand what's going on: http://brokestream.com/tex.pdf http://brokestream.com/tex.pdf I had never learned Pascal but I've managed to edit and compile TeX successfully, and it was easier than trying to understand any of my own non-literate programs. >My point being that if we wouldn’t rely on TeX itself and use ANT (or whatever alternative) which is written in the quite elegant OCaml, than hacking it would be at least possible for mere mortals. Although I have to admit, despite being in love with OCaml since my PhD days, it’s also a quite niche language. But imagine if the whole thing was written in Python, or at least C. Imagine if software engineers were actual engineers instead of glorified script kiddies. >I wish someone would design a new space shuttle because while it's a neat project I only understand MKS units and it's too much effort to use a calculator for converting between them and Imperial units.

dewey 6y ago
> Imagine if software engineers were actual engineers instead of glorified script kiddies. Maybe you shouldn't need to be an engineer to write a document with some formulas inside?
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  You don't. Maybe to edit such a complex program that you're using to convert your equations to some other pretty format you should.
- konjin 6y ago
  1 + 1 = 2 Aren't formulas easy to insert in plain text? The problem with maths notation is that it was invented by sighted people for sighted people as a short hand for very complex ideas, which at the time weren't fully understood. If you want to type equations use s-expressions, the clarity you get from saying what you mean is astonishing. (define integral (lambda (function) ;; Implementation of Risch algorithm left ;; as an exercise to the motivated reader. )) (define definite-integral (lambda (lower-bound upper-bound function) (let ((anti-derivative (integral function))) (- (anti-derivative upper-bound) (anti-derivative lower-bound))))) Hey look, you don't need the dummy variable explicitly any more. It's almost like it's a relic from a time before people understood what function application actually was. If you want the implicit mess (and incredible power) of higher maths, be prepared to deal with the the mess of typography. Which is why you need TeX, or worse.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    You're skimping on some of the complexity by equating a definition with a particular way of computing it, but that's completely inadequate for mathematics, as there are many things we can't compute (either in theory or in practice). In particular, you definition of integral assumes that integrable functions always have an antiderivative, which is wrong.
    - JadeNB 6y ago
      > In particular, you definition of integral assumes that integrable functions always have an antiderivative, which is wrong. I was objecting at the same time as you were, but I don't think this is the right objection. It's true that not every integrable function has an elementary anti-derivative, but every integrable function f does have an anti-derivative F, at least in the sense that F is almost everywhere differentiable, and the derivative is almost everywhere equal to f. (And, of course, if f is continuous, then F is everywhere differentiable, and its derivative everywhere equals f.)
      - Tainnor 6y ago
        If you say "at least in the sense that F is almost everywhere differentiable", you're already redefining "anti-derivative" to some extent, I feel. But this is just arguing over semantics. Even then, I think your claim that every integrable function has a "generalized antiderivative" is also only true for the Riemann integral. The Dirichlet function is Lebesgue integrable, but it doesn't have an antiderivative even in this weaker sense.[^1] And mathematicians generally prefer the Lebesgue integral. I think the more important insight here is that integration fundamentally isn't defined through the anti-derivative, and that the two notions are actually related is a deep theorem, rather than just a definition. And the fact that non-elementary antiderivatives exist is interesting in theory, but in practice you can't use them directly for anything. In particular, in practical situations you will often use numerical methods to integrate a function which will not be based on any notion of anti-derivative at all. [^1] Edit: I think I was wrong here. If you take the function identically zero, then its derivative is identically zero and as such equal to the Dirichlet function almost everywhere. So this is not a counterexample. I still think it's weird to call than an "antiderivative" though.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Back in the day we had engineers writing documents from markup. We called them typesetters. It was a qualified job, you don't expect the task to be something Joe Random could to with 6 weeks of training.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    At risk of gatekeeping, it doesn’t sound like typesetters merit the title of engineer.
    - formerly_proven 6y ago
      That's because it wasn't.
  - dewey 6y ago
    Back in the days operating a computer also needed weeks of training and was a qualified job. That doesn't mean it always has to stay that way.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > Back in the day we had engineers writing documents from markup. Back in the day secretaries were creating electronic documents with troff and nroff: > The first version of Unix was developed on a PDP-7 which was sitting around Bell Labs. In 1971 the developers wanted to get a PDP-11 for further work on the operating system. In order to justify the cost for this system, they proposed that they would implement a document-formatting system for the Bell Labs patents department[1]. This first formatting program was a reimplementation of McIllroy's roff, written by Joe F. Ossanna. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troff
    - rmbeard 6y ago
      OP, here. It's not that long ago, I've used troff myself. Or maybe it was that long ago, but it just seems like yesterday.
- falseprofit 6y ago
  We're not talking about the difficulty of writing a document using LaTeX, which I think we can agree is more or less proportional to the degree of control one has over the finished product. What's at stake here is the difficulty of editing the source code of LaTeX, which would be necessary in order to make the resulting pdf files more compatible with screen readers for the visually impaired.
hugh-avherald 6y ago
It does seem that the OP constructs a bit of a strawman by claiming TeX's source code is too complicated for an average computer science graduate. I doubt even the top 5% of computer graduates could more readily understand the source code of most common programs.
- vincent-manis 6y ago
  Well, Knuth's programming style is idiosyncratic, to say the least. But in the early 80s, in advance of the publication of The TeXBook, I learned enough TeX from reading the literate source for TeX to put together a 100-page software manual. I don't really agree with Knuth's version of literate programming, but one can hardly fault the TeX source for being unreadable.

by konjin 6y ago

dewey 6y ago

> Imagine if software engineers were actual engineers instead of glorified script kiddies. Maybe you shouldn't need to be an engineer to write a document with some formulas inside?

jimktrains2 6y ago
You don't. Maybe to edit such a complex program that you're using to convert your equations to some other pretty format you should.
konjin 6y ago
1 + 1 = 2 Aren't formulas easy to insert in plain text? The problem with maths notation is that it was invented by sighted people for sighted people as a short hand for very complex ideas, which at the time weren't fully understood. If you want to type equations use s-expressions, the clarity you get from saying what you mean is astonishing. (define integral (lambda (function) ;; Implementation of Risch algorithm left ;; as an exercise to the motivated reader. )) (define definite-integral (lambda (lower-bound upper-bound function) (let ((anti-derivative (integral function))) (- (anti-derivative upper-bound) (anti-derivative lower-bound))))) Hey look, you don't need the dummy variable explicitly any more. It's almost like it's a relic from a time before people understood what function application actually was. If you want the implicit mess (and incredible power) of higher maths, be prepared to deal with the the mess of typography. Which is why you need TeX, or worse.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  You're skimping on some of the complexity by equating a definition with a particular way of computing it, but that's completely inadequate for mathematics, as there are many things we can't compute (either in theory or in practice). In particular, you definition of integral assumes that integrable functions always have an antiderivative, which is wrong.
  - JadeNB 6y ago
    > In particular, you definition of integral assumes that integrable functions always have an antiderivative, which is wrong. I was objecting at the same time as you were, but I don't think this is the right objection. It's true that not every integrable function has an elementary anti-derivative, but every integrable function f does have an anti-derivative F, at least in the sense that F is almost everywhere differentiable, and the derivative is almost everywhere equal to f. (And, of course, if f is continuous, then F is everywhere differentiable, and its derivative everywhere equals f.)
    - Tainnor 6y ago
      If you say "at least in the sense that F is almost everywhere differentiable", you're already redefining "anti-derivative" to some extent, I feel. But this is just arguing over semantics. Even then, I think your claim that every integrable function has a "generalized antiderivative" is also only true for the Riemann integral. The Dirichlet function is Lebesgue integrable, but it doesn't have an antiderivative even in this weaker sense.[^1] And mathematicians generally prefer the Lebesgue integral. I think the more important insight here is that integration fundamentally isn't defined through the anti-derivative, and that the two notions are actually related is a deep theorem, rather than just a definition. And the fact that non-elementary antiderivatives exist is interesting in theory, but in practice you can't use them directly for anything. In particular, in practical situations you will often use numerical methods to integrate a function which will not be based on any notion of anti-derivative at all. [^1] Edit: I think I was wrong here. If you take the function identically zero, then its derivative is identically zero and as such equal to the Dirichlet function almost everywhere. So this is not a counterexample. I still think it's weird to call than an "antiderivative" though.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
Back in the day we had engineers writing documents from markup. We called them typesetters. It was a qualified job, you don't expect the task to be something Joe Random could to with 6 weeks of training.
- SilasX 6y ago
  At risk of gatekeeping, it doesn’t sound like typesetters merit the title of engineer.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    That's because it wasn't.
- dewey 6y ago
  Back in the days operating a computer also needed weeks of training and was a qualified job. That doesn't mean it always has to stay that way.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > Back in the day we had engineers writing documents from markup. Back in the day secretaries were creating electronic documents with troff and nroff: > The first version of Unix was developed on a PDP-7 which was sitting around Bell Labs. In 1971 the developers wanted to get a PDP-11 for further work on the operating system. In order to justify the cost for this system, they proposed that they would implement a document-formatting system for the Bell Labs patents department[1]. This first formatting program was a reimplementation of McIllroy's roff, written by Joe F. Ossanna. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troff
  - rmbeard 6y ago
    OP, here. It's not that long ago, I've used troff myself. Or maybe it was that long ago, but it just seems like yesterday.
falseprofit 6y ago
We're not talking about the difficulty of writing a document using LaTeX, which I think we can agree is more or less proportional to the degree of control one has over the finished product. What's at stake here is the difficulty of editing the source code of LaTeX, which would be necessary in order to make the resulting pdf files more compatible with screen readers for the visually impaired.

hugh-avherald 6y ago

It does seem that the OP constructs a bit of a strawman by claiming TeX's source code is too complicated for an average computer science graduate. I doubt even the top 5% of computer graduates could more readily understand the source code of most common programs.

vincent-manis 6y ago
Well, Knuth's programming style is idiosyncratic, to say the least. But in the early 80s, in advance of the publication of The TeXBook, I learned enough TeX from reading the literate source for TeX to put together a 100-page software manual. I don't really agree with Knuth's version of literate programming, but one can hardly fault the TeX source for being unreadable.