4 ms·

Anyone who doesn't have a long list of problems with LaTeX doesn't use it enough, or doesn't go beyond the built-in templates. Unfortunately, those templates ar

Anyone who doesn't have a long list of problems with LaTeX doesn't use it enough, or doesn't go beyond the built-in templates. Unfortunately, those templates are designed for print and not screen viewing ... so you really have to edit them. I'd be happy to argue this in detail, but I see that others have already hit many of the big points. (Some more: The typesetting is suboptimal, even if you improve it with the microtype package; the default symbols for real and imaginary part (\Re and \Im) are horrible; the cleverref package should be built in; the geometry package should be built in; the artificial distinction between equation and align environments is because the engine can't space properly around aligns, so this should be fixed and they should be a single command; \left and \right for delimiters often make really bad choices; the default font is the only good option if you need matching mathematical characters, and it grates on you after years of use; I could go on for hours...) The more interesting question to me is: What should be done about this? LaTeX seems too embedded in the scientific community for there to be a clean break to a new technology (see, e.g. arxiv.org). Also, I'm not sure an entirely new markup language would be desirable, since the core LaTeX language is actually not so bad – it's the transformation of the markup to the final document where the problems occur. What we need is a new backend or shim layer that keeps the basic language but allows for more aesthetically pleasing rendering and better control of the layout.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
I don't really see the point of using LaTeX for on-screen viewing, well, not unless you want to impose some amount of focus on the reader (which printed forms usually do). HTML or markdown for on-screen content usually works better. The main asset of Lamport's LaTeX is its high quality formatting for printed artifacts. Most of that in turn comes from Knuth's TeX, which is a much lower level language. One can do (and many definitely have done) markup to TeX languages, but they never expose as much control as LaTeX does, so aren't very popular. Madoko (https://www.madoko.net/ https://www.madoko.net/) does pretty good, however, so maybe try that? Otherwise, there are plenty of commercial and expensive typesetting systems out there, but besides the cost, I don't think they are even as user friendly or flexible as LaTeX.
- spekcular 5y ago
  I agree that ideally we should also provide an option to render into HTML/markdown. But for practical reasons it's necessary to have a digital artifact that matches the printed artifact in page and line numbering. I disagree that "The main asset of Lamport's LaTeX is its high quality formatting for printed artifacts." The main asset for the scientific community is that it lets them (relatively) easily write research papers that are dense with figures and mathematics. (And these are typically viewed online, via arXiv.)
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > But for practical reasons it's necessary to have a digital artifact that matches the printed artifact in page and line numbering. Unless you are distilling to PDF, this is not viable. But I assume you mean PDF output, then you need a screen form factor that is paper-like, like an iPad or some other letter/A4 style tablet. You can manipulate math for on-screen documents as well (MathML), but (a) it isn't very viable to use them for both formats and (b) people who pursue math publications mostly love the focus of paper formats (even if they view them on a screen as above).
    - spekcular 5y ago
      "But I assume you mean PDF output, then you need a screen form factor that is paper-like, like an iPad or some other letter/A4 style tablet." Why do I need this? Concretely, I go to the arXiv. I look at the paper a bit on my laptop. Then I print it and read it away from my laptop. The printed version has the same pagination and layout as the screen version.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        > Then I print it and read it away from my laptop. The printed version has the same pagination and layout as the screen version. You can totally do that, and that is the most common case. However, if you had a letter-sized device perfect for viewing PDF papers, it wouldn't be "weird" anymore, the pagination and layout would just feel like a good fit.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

I don't really see the point of using LaTeX for on-screen viewing, well, not unless you want to impose some amount of focus on the reader (which printed forms usually do). HTML or markdown for on-screen content usually works better. The main asset of Lamport's LaTeX is its high quality formatting for printed artifacts. Most of that in turn comes from Knuth's TeX, which is a much lower level language. One can do (and many definitely have done) markup to TeX languages, but they never expose as much control as LaTeX does, so aren't very popular. Madoko (https://www.madoko.net/ https://www.madoko.net/) does pretty good, however, so maybe try that? Otherwise, there are plenty of commercial and expensive typesetting systems out there, but besides the cost, I don't think they are even as user friendly or flexible as LaTeX.

spekcular 5y ago
I agree that ideally we should also provide an option to render into HTML/markdown. But for practical reasons it's necessary to have a digital artifact that matches the printed artifact in page and line numbering. I disagree that "The main asset of Lamport's LaTeX is its high quality formatting for printed artifacts." The main asset for the scientific community is that it lets them (relatively) easily write research papers that are dense with figures and mathematics. (And these are typically viewed online, via arXiv.)
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > But for practical reasons it's necessary to have a digital artifact that matches the printed artifact in page and line numbering. Unless you are distilling to PDF, this is not viable. But I assume you mean PDF output, then you need a screen form factor that is paper-like, like an iPad or some other letter/A4 style tablet. You can manipulate math for on-screen documents as well (MathML), but (a) it isn't very viable to use them for both formats and (b) people who pursue math publications mostly love the focus of paper formats (even if they view them on a screen as above).
  - spekcular 5y ago
    "But I assume you mean PDF output, then you need a screen form factor that is paper-like, like an iPad or some other letter/A4 style tablet." Why do I need this? Concretely, I go to the arXiv. I look at the paper a bit on my laptop. Then I print it and read it away from my laptop. The printed version has the same pagination and layout as the screen version.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      > Then I print it and read it away from my laptop. The printed version has the same pagination and layout as the screen version. You can totally do that, and that is the most common case. However, if you had a letter-sized device perfect for viewing PDF papers, it wouldn't be "weird" anymore, the pagination and layout would just feel like a good fit.