5 ms·

Will everyone switch to TeXmacs, which is truly WYSIWYG and does not use TeX/LaTeX? See: https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html https://www.texmacs.

Will everyone switch to TeXmacs, which is truly WYSIWYG and does not use TeX/LaTeX? See: https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html

mr_gibbins 5y ago
I doubt it, since in academia there are two gods, Word and LaTeX. It is very rare to find journals/conferences who don't specify one template or the other (with the possible exception of ACM, who are a law unto themselves). TexMacs might be OK for final preparation of camera-ready PDFs but by that point you're already invested in Word/LaTeX so there's no point switching typesetter.
- amichail 5y ago
  TeXmacs is better than Word for documents containing math.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Given that Word does LaTeX math, why would that be?
    - amichail 5y ago
      In TeXmacs, switching between math and non-math mode while writing up a document is seamless and fast. Moreover, typesetting quality is comparable to TeX/LaTeX.
    - asdf_snar 5y ago
      Writing math in Word has the following disadvantages: - referencing is a nightmare (this is probably the worst aspect). \label and \ref or \eqref? No, remember the equation number, click the References tab, Cross-Reference, select "equation" from the "Reference type" dropdown list, scroll down to the equation whose number you should remember, click "Insert". Did you add remove/an equation, thereby changing all subsequent equation numbers? Let's hope "Update all fields" works on the first try (hint: it won't). - AMS math standards, \mathbb{R}, \mathcal{R}? No, \doubleR, \scriptR. - \bar{x}? No, \bar SPACE SPACE left-arrow x right-arrow. - \begin{align*}? No, good luck. (Actually I haven't even figured this one out). - Version control? No, "Track changes". Oh, you changed a subscript or superscript? Your file is corrupted and cannot be saved, Ctrl-z until you can save and hope you remember all your changes. - Seamless math typing if you are fast and proficient at LaTeX? No, Alt+= and hold on while I catch up. Did you go too fast? Sorry, Word has stopped responding. (This is a real problem in a 50+ page Word document full of math.) Those are just the ones off the top of my head. +1 for TeXmacs being superior to both Word and LaTeX. After using LaTeX for years I tried TeXmacs for a week and never looked back.
      - salamandersauce 5y ago
        It's also just a tiny subset of LaTeX commands and not real LaTeX. I use the bm package to make things bold and I can't use that in Word. It doesn't support \begin{} and \end{} for any environment so for stuff like matrices you need to use special Word syntax \matrix{}.
      - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        The secret is to revert back to Draft/Normal mode and abandon the performance regressions from print preview mode. Word was never designed to use that as the primary editing view.
    - syntaxfree 5y ago
      The math equations made by Word have a distinctive appearance. Partly because they’re objectively worse in some (a few) aspects, partly because people associate them with Word, the result feels amateurish. This isn’t purely an intrinsic technical quality of Word, it’s just how the cookie crumbles.
      - GiovanniP 5y ago
        > The math equations made by Word have a distinctive appearance. Try and use the GUST fonts (http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry), Microsoft Word equations will look then excellently made. The last time I used the GUST fonts, by the way, I was able to export Word documents to pdf only be printing, as using the pdf converter some glyphs would "lose pieces"; and exporting via printing I would lose the clickable links. But I did not try with the Word plugin for the latest versions of Acrobat.
    - azalemeth 5y ago
      Word does a subset of LaTeX, badly. For anything after high school, the limitations of it are painfully, painfully apparent.
- GiovanniP 5y ago
  It will take a bit. I think that there are good points in switching document preparation system. Differently from LaTeX, TeXmacs can be programmed in a sensible way (it uses Scheme), and differently from Word you have access to the source. It is superior enough to both systems that the future standard will work according to the ideas implemented in it, I think.
quietbritishjim 5y ago
It's a pity it's called "TeXmacs" when, as you say, it really has no connection to TeX (except the ability to typeset mathematics). Another alternative is LyX, which actually does use LaTeX. Even that is not really a "LaTeX editor" though: it produces/exports excellent LaTeX, and uses that for typesetting, but does pretty poorly at importing LaTeX (as the developers freely admit). Depending on your situation that may or may not be a problem: if you just have to give a journal the final result in LaTeX then you can use LyX to produce it, but if you want to collarboratively work on a paper with someone else who wants to use raw LaTeX then it wouldn't be suitable. I wrote my masters thesis, course notes, and PhD thesis in LyX and would strongly recommend it - although it's a GUI I would argue it has a stronger learning curve than raw LaTeX, but leaves you more productive in the end.
- GiovanniP 5y ago
  > does pretty poorly at importing LaTeX As far as I know, an importer that interprets arbitrary LaTeX cannot exist (i.e. you have to run LaTeX on the file) because the grammar of LaTeX documents is Turing-complete. There is a StackExchange Q&A where this is explained, but I do not understand the arguments ;-)
  - quietbritishjim 5y ago
    That makes sense. Also (and I realise this is a bit less deep than undecidable grammar) I've certainly seen LaTeX documents with so many random macros that I don't recognise the content of it at all! I'm sure we've all come across those. I can understand why a program wouldn't stand much of a chance. Personally I never really needed LaTeX import so I don't really see it as a problem, but I know it matters to some people.
    - GiovanniP 5y ago
      On the "import from LaTeX" Joris van der Hoeven advanced the argument that the impossibility of writing a general import file from LaTeX allows LaTeX to maintain its status as the main document preparation system for scientific articles. In fact, if you could import arbitrary LaTeX, an user of a different system could collaborate with LaTeX users (probably a form of "conservative conversion" would be necessary for back and forth translation between document formats).
pvaldes 5y ago
There is a terrific tool, and people is trying hard to avoid using it? I can't see any advantage in not using TeX/LaTex versus using it.
- amichail 5y ago
  The editing experience is horrendous compared to TeXmacs.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    But the powerhorse difference, oh. It plays in a really different league. I enjoy emacs a lot also, so is a two lose moves in one step
    - mgubi 5y ago
      You do not know what are you talking about clearly. What is "this powerhosrse difference"? What in your opinion is possible with one tool but not with the other?

Will everyone switch to TeXmacs, which is truly WYSIWYG and does not use TeX/LaTeX? See: https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html

mr_gibbins 5y ago

I doubt it, since in academia there are two gods, Word and LaTeX. It is very rare to find journals/conferences who don't specify one template or the other (with the possible exception of ACM, who are a law unto themselves). TexMacs might be OK for final preparation of camera-ready PDFs but by that point you're already invested in Word/LaTeX so there's no point switching typesetter.

amichail 5y ago
TeXmacs is better than Word for documents containing math.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Given that Word does LaTeX math, why would that be?
  - amichail 5y ago
    In TeXmacs, switching between math and non-math mode while writing up a document is seamless and fast. Moreover, typesetting quality is comparable to TeX/LaTeX.
  - asdf_snar 5y ago
    Writing math in Word has the following disadvantages: - referencing is a nightmare (this is probably the worst aspect). \label and \ref or \eqref? No, remember the equation number, click the References tab, Cross-Reference, select "equation" from the "Reference type" dropdown list, scroll down to the equation whose number you should remember, click "Insert". Did you add remove/an equation, thereby changing all subsequent equation numbers? Let's hope "Update all fields" works on the first try (hint: it won't). - AMS math standards, \mathbb{R}, \mathcal{R}? No, \doubleR, \scriptR. - \bar{x}? No, \bar SPACE SPACE left-arrow x right-arrow. - \begin{align*}? No, good luck. (Actually I haven't even figured this one out). - Version control? No, "Track changes". Oh, you changed a subscript or superscript? Your file is corrupted and cannot be saved, Ctrl-z until you can save and hope you remember all your changes. - Seamless math typing if you are fast and proficient at LaTeX? No, Alt+= and hold on while I catch up. Did you go too fast? Sorry, Word has stopped responding. (This is a real problem in a 50+ page Word document full of math.) Those are just the ones off the top of my head. +1 for TeXmacs being superior to both Word and LaTeX. After using LaTeX for years I tried TeXmacs for a week and never looked back.
    - salamandersauce 5y ago
      It's also just a tiny subset of LaTeX commands and not real LaTeX. I use the bm package to make things bold and I can't use that in Word. It doesn't support \begin{} and \end{} for any environment so for stuff like matrices you need to use special Word syntax \matrix{}.
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      The secret is to revert back to Draft/Normal mode and abandon the performance regressions from print preview mode. Word was never designed to use that as the primary editing view.
  - syntaxfree 5y ago
    The math equations made by Word have a distinctive appearance. Partly because they’re objectively worse in some (a few) aspects, partly because people associate them with Word, the result feels amateurish. This isn’t purely an intrinsic technical quality of Word, it’s just how the cookie crumbles.
    - GiovanniP 5y ago
      > The math equations made by Word have a distinctive appearance. Try and use the GUST fonts (http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry), Microsoft Word equations will look then excellently made. The last time I used the GUST fonts, by the way, I was able to export Word documents to pdf only be printing, as using the pdf converter some glyphs would "lose pieces"; and exporting via printing I would lose the clickable links. But I did not try with the Word plugin for the latest versions of Acrobat.
  - azalemeth 5y ago
    Word does a subset of LaTeX, badly. For anything after high school, the limitations of it are painfully, painfully apparent.
GiovanniP 5y ago
It will take a bit. I think that there are good points in switching document preparation system. Differently from LaTeX, TeXmacs can be programmed in a sensible way (it uses Scheme), and differently from Word you have access to the source. It is superior enough to both systems that the future standard will work according to the ideas implemented in it, I think.

quietbritishjim 5y ago

It's a pity it's called "TeXmacs" when, as you say, it really has no connection to TeX (except the ability to typeset mathematics). Another alternative is LyX, which actually does use LaTeX. Even that is not really a "LaTeX editor" though: it produces/exports excellent LaTeX, and uses that for typesetting, but does pretty poorly at importing LaTeX (as the developers freely admit). Depending on your situation that may or may not be a problem: if you just have to give a journal the final result in LaTeX then you can use LyX to produce it, but if you want to collarboratively work on a paper with someone else who wants to use raw LaTeX then it wouldn't be suitable. I wrote my masters thesis, course notes, and PhD thesis in LyX and would strongly recommend it - although it's a GUI I would argue it has a stronger learning curve than raw LaTeX, but leaves you more productive in the end.

GiovanniP 5y ago
> does pretty poorly at importing LaTeX As far as I know, an importer that interprets arbitrary LaTeX cannot exist (i.e. you have to run LaTeX on the file) because the grammar of LaTeX documents is Turing-complete. There is a StackExchange Q&A where this is explained, but I do not understand the arguments ;-)
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  That makes sense. Also (and I realise this is a bit less deep than undecidable grammar) I've certainly seen LaTeX documents with so many random macros that I don't recognise the content of it at all! I'm sure we've all come across those. I can understand why a program wouldn't stand much of a chance. Personally I never really needed LaTeX import so I don't really see it as a problem, but I know it matters to some people.
  - GiovanniP 5y ago
    On the "import from LaTeX" Joris van der Hoeven advanced the argument that the impossibility of writing a general import file from LaTeX allows LaTeX to maintain its status as the main document preparation system for scientific articles. In fact, if you could import arbitrary LaTeX, an user of a different system could collaborate with LaTeX users (probably a form of "conservative conversion" would be necessary for back and forth translation between document formats).

pvaldes 5y ago

There is a terrific tool, and people is trying hard to avoid using it? I can't see any advantage in not using TeX/LaTex versus using it.

amichail 5y ago
The editing experience is horrendous compared to TeXmacs.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  But the powerhorse difference, oh. It plays in a really different league. I enjoy emacs a lot also, so is a two lose moves in one step
  - mgubi 5y ago
    You do not know what are you talking about clearly. What is "this powerhosrse difference"? What in your opinion is possible with one tool but not with the other?