4 ms·

The about summarizes it: > Experimental Oxidization of Tectonic the TeX/LaTeX engine.

• enriquto 6y ago
  Does "oxidization" mean "a port to the rust language" ?
  • infogulch 6y ago
    Yes, "oxidation" as in "rusting" as in "converting to rust". It's a bit of fun wordplay. :)
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• scoopertrooper 6y ago
  ...but it's forked from an existing Rust port of Latex. That's the bit that intrigues me; what is the difference between this port and the original?
  • infogulch 6y ago
    If seems to me that upstream is C. https://github.com/tectonic-typesetting/tectonic/ https://github.com/tectonic-typesetting/tectonic/
    • scoopertrooper 6y ago
      O'rly? https://github.com/tectonic-typesetting/tectonic/blob/master/src/engines/xdvipdfmx.rs https://github.com/tectonic-typesetting/tectonic/blob/master...
      • kgwgk 6y ago
        It seems you're linking to wrappers to the underlying https://github.com/tectonic-typesetting/tectonic/tree/master/tectonic https://github.com/tectonic-typesetting/tectonic/tree/master...
        • OJFord 6y ago
          As I understand/recall - the intention was always to be a rust rewrite; the starting point was 'let's take all the C and wrap it in `unsafe`'. The issue linked up-thread introduces this fork (~ a year ago) titling it '[convert to rust] everything' (emphasis mine), and going on to talk about 'pure rust' (again). I think the main repo's issue at least would've been a clearer submission than the fork; I initially had the same reaction as above.