3 ms·
I kind of want to see a result with the objective of having (La)TeX documents to be easily editable without having to re-run the entire (La)TeX stack over and o
by Shorel 4y ago
I kind of want to see a result with the objective of having (La)TeX documents to be easily editable without having to re-run the entire (La)TeX stack over and over again. I think we share this objective as something positive. Like having WordPerfect 5.1 with reveal codes being LaTeX, and real-time rendering of the document.
But your nitpick about if it is a compiler or an interpreter is irrelevant IMO.
You want some persistent runtime as the solution to having a more responsive TeX workflow. And think compiler vs interpreter is the answer.
I will argue is the total opposite. A compiler would produce an end result, in this case a plain document. An interpreter will have the runtime inside, as all interpreters do. Therefore, the interpreter is the right solution. What we need is an interpreter that stays in memory, with all its memory structures representing the TeX data, and that updates the memory structures when we type text.
The fact that when TeX runs it reads a file, then process its instructions and then terminates, is an argument to classify it as a compiler. An interpreter gives us a prompt and awaits for orders.
- kragen 4y agoI haven't talked at all about whether incremental WYSIWYG editing of TeX documents is desirable, nor indeed about incremental WYSIWYG editing of TeX documents at all. Nor did I talk about whether a more responsive TeX workflow was desirable. The only things I said were desirable were (a) being less aggressive and (b) understanding the distinction between interpreters and compilers. I have no idea why you would believe I agree with you about these objectives. Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else, in addition to being confused about what a compiler is, and about whether TeX has an interactive mode with a prompt, which it does (as, you point out, do many other interpreters). Your proposed definition of "compiler", which would make grep a "compiler", as well as CPython when run with a .py file as an argument, but not HotSpot, is almost completely unrelated to the standard definitions. I have quoted a selection of them for your edification in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32362579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32362579. The standard term for what you are calling a "compiler" is "batch-mode program".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Shorel 4y ago> I haven't talked at all about whether incremental WYSIWYG editing of TeX documents is desirable, nor indeed about incremental WYSIWYG editing of TeX documents at all. Nor did I talk about whether a more responsive TeX workflow was desirable. In that case, I find this conversation irrelevant to me. The precise definitions are just that, definitions, and are there to serve an objective, they are not the end themselves. Goodbye.