4 ms·

Since when is LaTeX is a "lightweight markup language"? * It's not at all lightweight, I'm pretty sure it's Turing complete up the wazoo. * You can reprogram

Since when is LaTeX is a "lightweight markup language"? * It's not at all lightweight, I'm pretty sure it's Turing complete up the wazoo. * You can reprogram the f'ing grammar, down to the interpretation of individual input characters... * In fact, I'm not sure you can even call it a markup language. It's a macro-based programmable system on top of a typesetter.

taeric 4y ago
For the generation of documents and papers, I'm not actually sure that avoidance of Turing complete is really a worthy goal. It can certainly go too far, but I think it is a sympathetic view that the quest for complete separation between content and presentation has given more victims to failed delivery than macros have. I do think that stability is something that needs some discussion here, for a great markup language. Not stability as in "doesn't crash", but in "doesn't change."
- stopdropnhotpot 4y ago
  Can you get away with ignoring Turing? sure. But it's not going to be a "great markup language" Victims? Why would this requirement cause development difficulty? If anything it would make it easier to deliver, and a lot easier to develop alternative parsers for, and easier to extend as well. We figured out all these things a long time ago but then ignored them because we thought we knew better then those who came before us.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. Or agree, all told. org-mode is a great markup language that lets me put in actual program snippets. I technically can make it self modifying such that it reflects on itself. May be useful for some things, but I don't know why I would go out of my way to do that. Just as I don't know why i would go out of my way to make it not possible. Similarly, I confess that plain TeX is a lot more approachable than I had always assumed it was. Even better, older TeX files still work, today. Granted, early HTML mostly still works, I think. Though, I think xhtml failed miserably. And as nice as it is that HTML still mostly works, I don't know of anyone that actually uses HTML as their authoring language, which is more than a bit of a shame.

taeric 4y ago

For the generation of documents and papers, I'm not actually sure that avoidance of Turing complete is really a worthy goal. It can certainly go too far, but I think it is a sympathetic view that the quest for complete separation between content and presentation has given more victims to failed delivery than macros have. I do think that stability is something that needs some discussion here, for a great markup language. Not stability as in "doesn't crash", but in "doesn't change."

stopdropnhotpot 4y ago
Can you get away with ignoring Turing? sure. But it's not going to be a "great markup language" Victims? Why would this requirement cause development difficulty? If anything it would make it easier to deliver, and a lot easier to develop alternative parsers for, and easier to extend as well. We figured out all these things a long time ago but then ignored them because we thought we knew better then those who came before us.
- taeric 4y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. Or agree, all told. org-mode is a great markup language that lets me put in actual program snippets. I technically can make it self modifying such that it reflects on itself. May be useful for some things, but I don't know why I would go out of my way to do that. Just as I don't know why i would go out of my way to make it not possible. Similarly, I confess that plain TeX is a lot more approachable than I had always assumed it was. Even better, older TeX files still work, today. Granted, early HTML mostly still works, I think. Though, I think xhtml failed miserably. And as nice as it is that HTML still mostly works, I don't know of anyone that actually uses HTML as their authoring language, which is more than a bit of a shame.