4 ms·

Typst typesets proportional width fonts just fine...?

globular-toast 2y ago
The commenter is referring to the editing experience, not the rendered output. Most people edit stuff like typst and (La)TeX in a code editor with a fixed-width font. Emacs supports variable-width fonts just fine and in theory you could use variable width for the "content" and reserve fixed width for the code. Not sure how well it works in practice, though. Of course, that doesn't go as far as TeXmacs.
lejalv 2y ago
Typst is a 2-pane editing experience. What you edit is ugly, even if less ugly than LaTeX or (gasp!) XML. TeXmacs is an interactive typesetter. It typesets as you go. You can mark chunks of content up (semantically or visually or both) the way you do with any other batch-based typesetter, but you don't need to suffer the markup when you look up at the matrix, integral or set-theory equation you wrote on the paragraph above. Most of the comments just misunderstand TeXmacs. I wholeheartedly recommend to watch the quick tour video (3m40s): https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html
- amelius 2y ago
  Yeah, what people miss is that for everything you write you will read it at least 10 times. Why go through the unnecessary pain of reading the markup yourself?
  - eddd-ddde 2y ago
    Because it's easier to edit markup by reading markup??? I don't want to edit a rendered document. I already have MS Word if I wanted to do that.
    - amelius 2y ago
      Reading markup isn't always easy. Have you ever edited a large matrix in LaTeX? (Or a table in HTML?)
- tannhaeuser 2y ago
  > (gasp!) XML I must be missing context here but I thought we were past side snarks out of mere generational antagonism. If not, please enlighten me ;) Anyway, comparing XML against a compact syntax a la markdown or typst (AIU!) is besides the point: XML is just meant as canonical SGML syntax for delivery to browsers while full SGML has all the additional features for editing, such as short references (custom Wiki syntax token mappings for eg markdown support), tag inference, and LPDs (restricted element and attribute transformations), that together deliver quite powerful authoring and content app capabilities without turning into a full-featured programming language. HTML, without doubt the most important markup language, is based on it after all though the vast customization features of SGML really favors building your own project-specific Wiki syntax that's then mapped to a rendering vocabulary such as HTML).
  - samatman 2y ago
    > I must be missing context here but I thought we were past side snarks out of mere generational antagonism. If not, please enlighten me ;) The context is right there in the rest of the comment: editing XML by hand is a hideous experience. It also has its problems as a format for data exchange, but those are much less acute.

The commenter is referring to the editing experience, not the rendered output. Most people edit stuff like typst and (La)TeX in a code editor with a fixed-width font. Emacs supports variable-width fonts just fine and in theory you could use variable width for the "content" and reserve fixed width for the code. Not sure how well it works in practice, though. Of course, that doesn't go as far as TeXmacs.

lejalv 2y ago

Typst is a 2-pane editing experience. What you edit is ugly, even if less ugly than LaTeX or (gasp!) XML. TeXmacs is an interactive typesetter. It typesets as you go. You can mark chunks of content up (semantically or visually or both) the way you do with any other batch-based typesetter, but you don't need to suffer the markup when you look up at the matrix, integral or set-theory equation you wrote on the paragraph above. Most of the comments just misunderstand TeXmacs. I wholeheartedly recommend to watch the quick tour video (3m40s): https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html

amelius 2y ago
Yeah, what people miss is that for everything you write you will read it at least 10 times. Why go through the unnecessary pain of reading the markup yourself?
- eddd-ddde 2y ago
  Because it's easier to edit markup by reading markup??? I don't want to edit a rendered document. I already have MS Word if I wanted to do that.
  - amelius 2y ago
    Reading markup isn't always easy. Have you ever edited a large matrix in LaTeX? (Or a table in HTML?)
tannhaeuser 2y ago
> (gasp!) XML I must be missing context here but I thought we were past side snarks out of mere generational antagonism. If not, please enlighten me ;) Anyway, comparing XML against a compact syntax a la markdown or typst (AIU!) is besides the point: XML is just meant as canonical SGML syntax for delivery to browsers while full SGML has all the additional features for editing, such as short references (custom Wiki syntax token mappings for eg markdown support), tag inference, and LPDs (restricted element and attribute transformations), that together deliver quite powerful authoring and content app capabilities without turning into a full-featured programming language. HTML, without doubt the most important markup language, is based on it after all though the vast customization features of SGML really favors building your own project-specific Wiki syntax that's then mapped to a rendering vocabulary such as HTML).
- samatman 2y ago
  > I must be missing context here but I thought we were past side snarks out of mere generational antagonism. If not, please enlighten me ;) The context is right there in the rest of the comment: editing XML by hand is a hideous experience. It also has its problems as a format for data exchange, but those are much less acute.