7 ms·

Does it come with a context-free syntax? If not, that would be a grave mistake. Being unparseable is one of the biggest problems of TeX, IMO. Not the least beca

Does it come with a context-free syntax? If not, that would be a grave mistake. Being unparseable is one of the biggest problems of TeX, IMO. Not the least because you cannot automatically work with TeX "documents".

chrisseaton 4y ago
I work with TeX quite a lot and I can't even really understand intuitively the principles of the language design let alone the grammar. Like 15 years later and I'm still copy and pasting spells. I'd love to see an CST of my document and figure out why I'm writing the characters I'm writing!
- foldr 4y ago
  TikZ is the worst for this. I don't usually have any problem picking up esoteric programming languages, but whatever the hell is going in with TikZ/TeX will be forever beyond my comprehension.
  - youainti 4y ago
    Take a look at Tikzit a gui for tikz. GUIs have their downsides but they make a lot of sense for graphical output.
  - lottin 4y ago
    I find TikZ quite amazing. You make a picture by describing a picture. It's completely unlike anything else.
    - foldr 4y ago
      Oh yes, I find TikZ very useful and it's an amazing piece of engineering. My point is more that I find it very difficult to understand how it works on a deep level.
- zzless 4y ago
  My experience with TeX is a complete opposite. I feel like I can do pretty much anything in plain TeX, with a very good feel of what it is doing in its 'guts'. I wrote parsers in compilers in pure TeX (the latter was admittedly a silly academic exercise). It took a very thorough reading of 'The TeXbook' but after that I am constantly amazed at how deliberate and tasteful Knuth's choices were. TeX is simply ... elegant. I am not sure what 'modern' bells and whistles TeX lacks that everyone is so eager to see. CSS is a nightmare, even with recent additions, it seems clunky, most of its choices look like an afterthought. It is also somewhat puzzling that same people who advocate for a better grammar would also push the idea of a better markup. So which is it: a better programming experience or a pure markup language that one wants? I feel TeX strikes a near perfect balance here. Most importantly, TeX has stayed nearly unchanged at its core for almost forty years! It is its greatest strength, not weakness. I cannot see what latest fads can improve in TeX
  - choeger 4y ago
    > latest fads Context-free languages are the standard for decades now. They haven't been in the very early days of computing due to a lack of formal education of programmers and because they come with a certain, but tiny, memory requirement. What Knuth did with TeX was a violation of KISS. There's no good reason, but several downsides, to mix markup, code, and interpreter state like this.
    - zzless 4y ago
      I am not sure what you mean by context-free languages because literally none of the modern languages have context-free grammars. This includes HTML and XML although I would not call them programming languages per se. C++ grammar is undecidable. On the other hand, TeX's core typesetting language (i.e. not using its macro facilities) is context-free. Quite trivial in fact. Pascal, which is the language used to build TeX is context-free (even LL(1)), as well, which cannot be said about, say, C. I would also be quite hesitant to claim that Knuth, who literally pioneered modern LR parsing theory (and deservedly got a Turing award for it) somehow lacked knowledge or awareness of cutting edge parser design techniques. Finally, there is absolutely good reasons to design TeX as Knuth did. That TeX withstood the test of time for over three decades is a perfect testimony to that.
- enriquto 4y ago
  > I work with TeX quite a lot and I can't even really understand intuitively the principles of the language design let alone the grammar. Read the TeXbook. No, really, it is a beautifully written text. The program it describes is quite elegant. Most of the complexity comes from modern LaTeX packages, not from the core tool.
svat 4y ago
TeX is a program for typesetting, and IMO if one is a programmer, it is best used as a target or output format: do all your "document" stuff somewhere else (don't use LaTeX), and use TeX just for typesetting. You can have your document in some parsable format, but not require it of the output .tex file, just as we expect high-level programming-language source code to be parsable but don't really expect to get much utility out of parsing assembly or object code. Knuth initially added macros to TeX just as a convenience to save some typing here and there, and the tradition of (ab)using that macro ability as a language in which to program, inaugurated in a small way by Knuth himself and later taken to dizzying heights by others (such as Leslie Lamport with LaTeX, and hundreds/thousands of assorted "package" authors since, and the LaTeX team currently), is IMO a mistake. If you use TeX just for typesetting, it is quite a nice program that does what you want, and has very good error messages (yes) and debugging output.
- walnutclosefarm 4y ago
  > TeX is a program for typesetting, and IMO if one is a programmer, it is best used as a target or output format That's the only thing I ever found it to be good for. Even then, it's a PITA. The world would not be a poorer place if it disappeared and was replaced something that that separated style definition, markup, and content in a reasonable fashion, and used modern language techniques (just a CFG would be a start) for the first two.
  - jeffrallen 4y ago
    And Computer Modern Roman is as ugly as fudge.
    - KolenCh 4y ago
      Not totally disagreeing but note that it is expected to be printed, and modern readers often just look at a PDF which makes the weights too light. Also it has some aliasing problem (or may be named differently, but basically when you view the PDF some words look like a line is skipped but when you zoom or print it out it has no problem.) Also modern LaTeX is supposed to not use computer modern anymore, but the Latin Modern (which imitates computer modern but fixes some of its shortcomings.)
xavxav 4y ago
It's damning that there no truly functional grammar or spellchecker for latex, even ignoring crazy things that can be done with macros. If some billionaire wanted to 'move the needle' and change society for the better I think building a truly better latex would be worth it. Each year some of the most brilliant people in the world sacrifice on the altar of latex, that could instead be spent on more productive research.
- privong 4y ago
  > Each year some of the most brilliant people in the world sacrifice on the altar of latex, that could instead be spent on more productive research. Perhaps. But I'd wager that more time is lost to the bureaucracy of universities and grant administration than to fighting LaTeX quirks. I'm not sure that "fixing" (La)TeX would result in a noticeable improvement in research that could be done.
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  I'd like to know what a "better LaTeX" means, and how that would move the needle, given that the only things you can't easily do in modern (Xe)LaTeX are things that you shouldn't be using TeX itself for in the first place, but have other tools do so you can simply embed their output. Especially given the availability of WYSIWYG-esque editors with "one-click" compile buttons that run all the nonsense that we used to have to do by hand back in the dark days of "you want a GUI? Get out of my office, you simp" paired with the modern "just install missing packages without asking me, that's the whole point: I do the writing, you make that frictionless."
  - convolvatron 4y ago
    I have a difficult time with this comment. everyone I know who uses Latex including myself is painfully aware of its shortcomings and fairly steep learning curve. maybe the graphical environments eliminate some of the pain around embedding images, or using wrapped figures. but there is no way they manage to get around the fundamental lack of composibility. that sinking feeling you get when you just add one more thing or try to put an X inside of Y and the whole thing falls over in a pile.
taeric 4y ago
This is a red herring, I assert. There is no "boiling the problem down to a simple grammar" that has promise for a total solution. There are plenty of ways to combine the different parts that work well, and even more ways to combine them into nonsense. Disallowing the nonsense is probably not going to make the ways that work well any better.
alerque 4y ago
Yes it comes with its own context-free syntax that (despite some surface resemblance to TeX) is quite easy to parse. It can also ingest XML and some other formats.

chrisseaton 4y ago

I work with TeX quite a lot and I can't even really understand intuitively the principles of the language design let alone the grammar. Like 15 years later and I'm still copy and pasting spells. I'd love to see an CST of my document and figure out why I'm writing the characters I'm writing!

foldr 4y ago
TikZ is the worst for this. I don't usually have any problem picking up esoteric programming languages, but whatever the hell is going in with TikZ/TeX will be forever beyond my comprehension.
- youainti 4y ago
  Take a look at Tikzit a gui for tikz. GUIs have their downsides but they make a lot of sense for graphical output.
- lottin 4y ago
  I find TikZ quite amazing. You make a picture by describing a picture. It's completely unlike anything else.
  - foldr 4y ago
    Oh yes, I find TikZ very useful and it's an amazing piece of engineering. My point is more that I find it very difficult to understand how it works on a deep level.
zzless 4y ago
My experience with TeX is a complete opposite. I feel like I can do pretty much anything in plain TeX, with a very good feel of what it is doing in its 'guts'. I wrote parsers in compilers in pure TeX (the latter was admittedly a silly academic exercise). It took a very thorough reading of 'The TeXbook' but after that I am constantly amazed at how deliberate and tasteful Knuth's choices were. TeX is simply ... elegant. I am not sure what 'modern' bells and whistles TeX lacks that everyone is so eager to see. CSS is a nightmare, even with recent additions, it seems clunky, most of its choices look like an afterthought. It is also somewhat puzzling that same people who advocate for a better grammar would also push the idea of a better markup. So which is it: a better programming experience or a pure markup language that one wants? I feel TeX strikes a near perfect balance here. Most importantly, TeX has stayed nearly unchanged at its core for almost forty years! It is its greatest strength, not weakness. I cannot see what latest fads can improve in TeX
- choeger 4y ago
  > latest fads Context-free languages are the standard for decades now. They haven't been in the very early days of computing due to a lack of formal education of programmers and because they come with a certain, but tiny, memory requirement. What Knuth did with TeX was a violation of KISS. There's no good reason, but several downsides, to mix markup, code, and interpreter state like this.
  - zzless 4y ago
    I am not sure what you mean by context-free languages because literally none of the modern languages have context-free grammars. This includes HTML and XML although I would not call them programming languages per se. C++ grammar is undecidable. On the other hand, TeX's core typesetting language (i.e. not using its macro facilities) is context-free. Quite trivial in fact. Pascal, which is the language used to build TeX is context-free (even LL(1)), as well, which cannot be said about, say, C. I would also be quite hesitant to claim that Knuth, who literally pioneered modern LR parsing theory (and deservedly got a Turing award for it) somehow lacked knowledge or awareness of cutting edge parser design techniques. Finally, there is absolutely good reasons to design TeX as Knuth did. That TeX withstood the test of time for over three decades is a perfect testimony to that.
enriquto 4y ago
> I work with TeX quite a lot and I can't even really understand intuitively the principles of the language design let alone the grammar. Read the TeXbook. No, really, it is a beautifully written text. The program it describes is quite elegant. Most of the complexity comes from modern LaTeX packages, not from the core tool.

svat 4y ago

TeX is a program for typesetting, and IMO if one is a programmer, it is best used as a target or output format: do all your "document" stuff somewhere else (don't use LaTeX), and use TeX just for typesetting. You can have your document in some parsable format, but not require it of the output .tex file, just as we expect high-level programming-language source code to be parsable but don't really expect to get much utility out of parsing assembly or object code. Knuth initially added macros to TeX just as a convenience to save some typing here and there, and the tradition of (ab)using that macro ability as a language in which to program, inaugurated in a small way by Knuth himself and later taken to dizzying heights by others (such as Leslie Lamport with LaTeX, and hundreds/thousands of assorted "package" authors since, and the LaTeX team currently), is IMO a mistake. If you use TeX just for typesetting, it is quite a nice program that does what you want, and has very good error messages (yes) and debugging output.

walnutclosefarm 4y ago
> TeX is a program for typesetting, and IMO if one is a programmer, it is best used as a target or output format That's the only thing I ever found it to be good for. Even then, it's a PITA. The world would not be a poorer place if it disappeared and was replaced something that that separated style definition, markup, and content in a reasonable fashion, and used modern language techniques (just a CFG would be a start) for the first two.
- jeffrallen 4y ago
  And Computer Modern Roman is as ugly as fudge.
  - KolenCh 4y ago
    Not totally disagreeing but note that it is expected to be printed, and modern readers often just look at a PDF which makes the weights too light. Also it has some aliasing problem (or may be named differently, but basically when you view the PDF some words look like a line is skipped but when you zoom or print it out it has no problem.) Also modern LaTeX is supposed to not use computer modern anymore, but the Latin Modern (which imitates computer modern but fixes some of its shortcomings.)

xavxav 4y ago

It's damning that there no truly functional grammar or spellchecker for latex, even ignoring crazy things that can be done with macros. If some billionaire wanted to 'move the needle' and change society for the better I think building a truly better latex would be worth it. Each year some of the most brilliant people in the world sacrifice on the altar of latex, that could instead be spent on more productive research.

privong 4y ago
> Each year some of the most brilliant people in the world sacrifice on the altar of latex, that could instead be spent on more productive research. Perhaps. But I'd wager that more time is lost to the bureaucracy of universities and grant administration than to fighting LaTeX quirks. I'm not sure that "fixing" (La)TeX would result in a noticeable improvement in research that could be done.
TheRealPomax 4y ago
I'd like to know what a "better LaTeX" means, and how that would move the needle, given that the only things you can't easily do in modern (Xe)LaTeX are things that you shouldn't be using TeX itself for in the first place, but have other tools do so you can simply embed their output. Especially given the availability of WYSIWYG-esque editors with "one-click" compile buttons that run all the nonsense that we used to have to do by hand back in the dark days of "you want a GUI? Get out of my office, you simp" paired with the modern "just install missing packages without asking me, that's the whole point: I do the writing, you make that frictionless."
- convolvatron 4y ago
  I have a difficult time with this comment. everyone I know who uses Latex including myself is painfully aware of its shortcomings and fairly steep learning curve. maybe the graphical environments eliminate some of the pain around embedding images, or using wrapped figures. but there is no way they manage to get around the fundamental lack of composibility. that sinking feeling you get when you just add one more thing or try to put an X inside of Y and the whole thing falls over in a pile.

taeric 4y ago

This is a red herring, I assert. There is no "boiling the problem down to a simple grammar" that has promise for a total solution. There are plenty of ways to combine the different parts that work well, and even more ways to combine them into nonsense. Disallowing the nonsense is probably not going to make the ways that work well any better.

alerque 4y ago

Yes it comes with its own context-free syntax that (despite some surface resemblance to TeX) is quite easy to parse. It can also ingest XML and some other formats.