5 ms·

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,

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).
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  LaTeX imports and interprets arbitrary LaTeX, so other programs can theoretically do just as well. Importers running up against Halting Problems occur in many document formats, but this is not an issue in practice since most documents are not nefarious, and any importer can (and should) have sensible timeouts for parsing.
  - mgubi 5y ago
    No, document formats are not turing complete. HTML for example can be parsed without any problem. However take this TeX snippet "\foo [bar]" and tell me if "bar" is an argument of "foo" or not, without running the macro (which maybe you do not have. This is the basic problem any TeX conversion program encounters. TeX is not a document format but a programming language. The only thing you can do with a TeX program is to run it. On the other hand an HTML document can be parsed without knowing anything about its content.
    - cardiffspaceman 5y ago
      I once upgraded an EPS interpreter that was used as the key piece of an EPS importer. I added a couple of PS things like 'arcto'. It seems to me a LaTeX importer could work as an interpreter, too. Probably not very much fun after a while.
      - mgubi 5y ago
        Graphics is different since usually the graphics primitives are the common substrate of all graphics languages, so the interpreter can just be adapted to a different backend. For more structured content this is not possible: the natural output of TeX is a sequence of graphics boxes for the glyphs, or something like a DVI format. It is too late to retain semantic informations, e.g. about mathematical formula. Ask anybody which writes LaTeX/HTML converters for example. TeXmacs does a good job to interpret "usual" LaTeX files but you cannot expect to be able to interpret arbitrary files and still retain semantic informations, e.g.: sectioning, references, emphasised texts, theorem statements, change of languages (e.g. from English to C++ to Math...) etc...
phkahler 5y ago
>> It's a pity it's called "TeXmacs" when, as you say, it really has no connection to TeX Yep. It sounds like something that ties emacs and LaTeX together. That's not something I'd even want to look at, and have not for exactly that reason. My goto math tool is Maxima, but I don't write so typesetting isn't a thing for me - it does support MathML though IIRC.
- amichail 5y ago
  TeXmacs doesn’t use emacs either.
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    Oh Lord, who thought that name was good
    - mgubi 5y ago
      Well, I guess that if you use "Python" you expect to really have to deal with a snake then.
      - TchoBeer 5y ago
        I understand that "the python programming language" probably doesn't involve snakes. On the other hand, "the TeXmacs math typesetting software" doesn't obviously not involve LaTeX and isn't obviously not for emacs.
        mgubi 5y ago
        It is a bit discomforting seeing that discussion in hackernews just remain at the level of "bad choice of name, btw!" without no technical insights. I would have expected more sensible reactions. TeX and Emacs were initial inspirations to TeXmacs (which has been written in the '90). As such they indeed inform some of the design choices, that said TeXmacs do not conform to them. The Emacs legacy is however very clear: all the editor behaviour is re-programmable in Scheme, from keybindings to menus, to the graphics editor (see here a recent example http://forum.texmacs.cn/t/why-not-draw-circle-by-center-and-radius/536/13 http://forum.texmacs.cn/t/why-not-draw-circle-by-center-and-...). As for the TeX legacy, TeXmacs actually improves on it by defining a document format while retaining the power of creating user defined macros, it also allows scheme code to be called from macros, since its beginning, 20+ years before LuaTeX. An overview of TeXmacs design can be found here: https://texmacs.github.io/notes/docs/overview.html https://texmacs.github.io/notes/docs/overview.html . I think people nowadays are more used to programs which are epsilon changes over existing systems, repackaged with brand new names. That is why TeXmacs could be puzzling at first. Does not fit usual categories. Maybe this says something of the current trends in (free)software design.
syntaxfree 5y ago
Re: lyx as a hard to get into GUI. Overleaf has decent tab completion and dozens of templates, as well as limited support for markdown. Let tabnine and copilot get to LaTeX; I think we’ll find the discoverability of “text language on Adderall” outguns GUIs.
- GiovanniP 5y ago
  My main "for" point towards GUIs is that one is able to read back easily what one wrote. On the other hand, to read comfortably a LaTeX equation I have to compile it; then for editing I have to move my attention back and forth from the compiled document to the source. (corrected a mistype)
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    It's mainly tables and to some extent figures that are intrinsically harder to read when written in TeX. The bulk of the text is just text, so if that's hard to read that's down to your editor settings.
    - GiovanniP 5y ago
      I have an example on-hand for that---it is also equations, look at this, I need to compile it to understand it (it needs the amsmath package): { \def \l {\mathrm{l}} \def \r {\mathrm{r}} \def \Bl {\mathrm{Bl}} \def \Br {\mathrm{Br}} \def \B {\mathrm{B}} \def \nIIom {n_{2\omega}} \begin{equation}\label{eq:interface_conditions} \begin{aligned} F_{1\l} &= F_{2\r} + F_{2\l} \exp (i\,k_2 L) + F_{\Br} + F_{\Bl} \exp(i\,k_\B L) \\ F_{1\r} &= -\nIIom \, F_{2\r} + \nIIom \, F_{2\l} \exp (i\,k_2 L) - \nIIom \, F_{\Br} + \nIIom \, F_{\Bl} \exp(i\,k_\B L)\\ F_{3\r} &= F_{2\r} \exp (i\,k_2 L) + F_{2\l} + F_{\Br} \exp(i\,k_\B L) + F_{\Bl} \\ -F_{3\l} &= \nIIom \, F_{2\r} \exp (i\,k_2 L) + \nIIom \, F_{2\l} - \nIIom \, F_{\Br} \exp(i\,k_\B L) + \nIIom \, F_{\Bl} \end{aligned} \end{equation} } (by the way the formula may contain some math mistakes---it is supposed to represent interface conditions for a system of waves in a nonlinear optical medium---but it is good enough for showing the editing point)
Breza 5y ago
LyX is a truly underrated piece of software. It was my entry point into LaTeX.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rob74 5y ago
Interestingly, the "X" in LyX is not pronounced the same way as the "X" in TeX/LaTeX. Would have been a nice pun, but they probably didn't want to have any "resurrected"/"undead" associations. OTOH, Wikipedia informs me that "Lich" is actually pronounced "ˈlɪtʃ", so the pun wouldn't have worked anyway. I was pronouncing the "ch" like the one in "Leiche" in German until now. Oh well...

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).
ChrisLomont 5y ago
LaTeX imports and interprets arbitrary LaTeX, so other programs can theoretically do just as well. Importers running up against Halting Problems occur in many document formats, but this is not an issue in practice since most documents are not nefarious, and any importer can (and should) have sensible timeouts for parsing.
- mgubi 5y ago
  No, document formats are not turing complete. HTML for example can be parsed without any problem. However take this TeX snippet "\foo [bar]" and tell me if "bar" is an argument of "foo" or not, without running the macro (which maybe you do not have. This is the basic problem any TeX conversion program encounters. TeX is not a document format but a programming language. The only thing you can do with a TeX program is to run it. On the other hand an HTML document can be parsed without knowing anything about its content.
  - cardiffspaceman 5y ago
    I once upgraded an EPS interpreter that was used as the key piece of an EPS importer. I added a couple of PS things like 'arcto'. It seems to me a LaTeX importer could work as an interpreter, too. Probably not very much fun after a while.
    - mgubi 5y ago
      Graphics is different since usually the graphics primitives are the common substrate of all graphics languages, so the interpreter can just be adapted to a different backend. For more structured content this is not possible: the natural output of TeX is a sequence of graphics boxes for the glyphs, or something like a DVI format. It is too late to retain semantic informations, e.g. about mathematical formula. Ask anybody which writes LaTeX/HTML converters for example. TeXmacs does a good job to interpret "usual" LaTeX files but you cannot expect to be able to interpret arbitrary files and still retain semantic informations, e.g.: sectioning, references, emphasised texts, theorem statements, change of languages (e.g. from English to C++ to Math...) etc...

phkahler 5y ago

>> It's a pity it's called "TeXmacs" when, as you say, it really has no connection to TeX Yep. It sounds like something that ties emacs and LaTeX together. That's not something I'd even want to look at, and have not for exactly that reason. My goto math tool is Maxima, but I don't write so typesetting isn't a thing for me - it does support MathML though IIRC.

amichail 5y ago
TeXmacs doesn’t use emacs either.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  Oh Lord, who thought that name was good
  - mgubi 5y ago
    Well, I guess that if you use "Python" you expect to really have to deal with a snake then.
    - TchoBeer 5y ago
      I understand that "the python programming language" probably doesn't involve snakes. On the other hand, "the TeXmacs math typesetting software" doesn't obviously not involve LaTeX and isn't obviously not for emacs.
      - mgubi 5y ago
        It is a bit discomforting seeing that discussion in hackernews just remain at the level of "bad choice of name, btw!" without no technical insights. I would have expected more sensible reactions. TeX and Emacs were initial inspirations to TeXmacs (which has been written in the '90). As such they indeed inform some of the design choices, that said TeXmacs do not conform to them. The Emacs legacy is however very clear: all the editor behaviour is re-programmable in Scheme, from keybindings to menus, to the graphics editor (see here a recent example http://forum.texmacs.cn/t/why-not-draw-circle-by-center-and-radius/536/13 http://forum.texmacs.cn/t/why-not-draw-circle-by-center-and-...). As for the TeX legacy, TeXmacs actually improves on it by defining a document format while retaining the power of creating user defined macros, it also allows scheme code to be called from macros, since its beginning, 20+ years before LuaTeX. An overview of TeXmacs design can be found here: https://texmacs.github.io/notes/docs/overview.html https://texmacs.github.io/notes/docs/overview.html . I think people nowadays are more used to programs which are epsilon changes over existing systems, repackaged with brand new names. That is why TeXmacs could be puzzling at first. Does not fit usual categories. Maybe this says something of the current trends in (free)software design.

syntaxfree 5y ago

Re: lyx as a hard to get into GUI. Overleaf has decent tab completion and dozens of templates, as well as limited support for markdown. Let tabnine and copilot get to LaTeX; I think we’ll find the discoverability of “text language on Adderall” outguns GUIs.

GiovanniP 5y ago
My main "for" point towards GUIs is that one is able to read back easily what one wrote. On the other hand, to read comfortably a LaTeX equation I have to compile it; then for editing I have to move my attention back and forth from the compiled document to the source. (corrected a mistype)
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  It's mainly tables and to some extent figures that are intrinsically harder to read when written in TeX. The bulk of the text is just text, so if that's hard to read that's down to your editor settings.
  - GiovanniP 5y ago
    I have an example on-hand for that---it is also equations, look at this, I need to compile it to understand it (it needs the amsmath package): { \def \l {\mathrm{l}} \def \r {\mathrm{r}} \def \Bl {\mathrm{Bl}} \def \Br {\mathrm{Br}} \def \B {\mathrm{B}} \def \nIIom {n_{2\omega}} \begin{equation}\label{eq:interface_conditions} \begin{aligned} F_{1\l} &= F_{2\r} + F_{2\l} \exp (i\,k_2 L) + F_{\Br} + F_{\Bl} \exp(i\,k_\B L) \\ F_{1\r} &= -\nIIom \, F_{2\r} + \nIIom \, F_{2\l} \exp (i\,k_2 L) - \nIIom \, F_{\Br} + \nIIom \, F_{\Bl} \exp(i\,k_\B L)\\ F_{3\r} &= F_{2\r} \exp (i\,k_2 L) + F_{2\l} + F_{\Br} \exp(i\,k_\B L) + F_{\Bl} \\ -F_{3\l} &= \nIIom \, F_{2\r} \exp (i\,k_2 L) + \nIIom \, F_{2\l} - \nIIom \, F_{\Br} \exp(i\,k_\B L) + \nIIom \, F_{\Bl} \end{aligned} \end{equation} } (by the way the formula may contain some math mistakes---it is supposed to represent interface conditions for a system of waves in a nonlinear optical medium---but it is good enough for showing the editing point)

Breza 5y ago

LyX is a truly underrated piece of software. It was my entry point into LaTeX.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rob74 5y ago

Interestingly, the "X" in LyX is not pronounced the same way as the "X" in TeX/LaTeX. Would have been a nice pun, but they probably didn't want to have any "resurrected"/"undead" associations. OTOH, Wikipedia informs me that "Lich" is actually pronounced "ˈlɪtʃ", so the pun wouldn't have worked anyway. I was pronouncing the "ch" like the one in "Leiche" in German until now. Oh well...