3 ms·
The TeXmacs webpage does not do a great job of undoing the main confusion around it: TeXmacs is neither (La)TeX-based (it has its own typesetter), nor it has mu
by lejalv 2y ago
The TeXmacs webpage does not do a great job of undoing the main confusion around it: TeXmacs is neither (La)TeX-based (it has its own typesetter), nor it has much to do with Emacs. Except perhaps that it is enormously configurable with a Lisp-based language, Guile Scheme.
You could say: the rendered output (interactively or as PDF export) looks as good if not better than if it was done with (La)TeX, and the editor can be customized to a degree similar (perhaps a little less?) than Emacs. Hence the name.
Incidentally, being able to customize Emacs with a Lisp other than emacs-lisp, is something the Emacs community would probably like, and there were in fact (now stalled) efforts to do so with Scheme.
- constantcrying 2y agoIt still was a terrible experience, no idea why you wouldn't use LaTeX or Typst over this, even Word felt better.
- lejalv 2y agoCan you explain what exactly was bad about the experience?
- constantcrying 2y agoIt just felt like Word, but without any polish. The best part of TeX always was that you only had to deal with text. Trying to write something like TeX, but being forced into a Word like graphical environment felt easily to be the worst of both worlds.
- lejalv 2y agoIt's hard to understand what is wrong, let alone do something about it when complaints are so generic. At the same time I understand your sentiment. After all, TeXmacs hasbeen for a long time a one-man effort. Joris was doing everything: programming, documentation, website, community support... How many people work/have worked on Word?