4 ms·

I hardly think so. Let's address them: > "LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result" It is not slow, it runs in

I hardly think so. Let's address them: > "LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result" It is not slow, it runs in under a second on most documents I have authored. > "Inconsistent" I'm not sure what tinco meant by this, but it does in fact return the same results for the same file across multiple runs. > "Needs to be run multiple times to give the correct result" This is true for things like references, etc. However, this proves to be a non-issue in practice as you are recompiling so often to view changes that references are always up to date. > "It's syntax is ugly." I don't see how learning LaTeX is different from learning any other programming language. I don't think that many C++ gurus would call C++ "ugly". Calling a progamming language "ugly" is often the last argument you see when someone couldn't come up with a decent argument against it.

Guvante 13y ago
Inconsistent probably refers to the fact that there are subtleties that can mess you up, once it works you are fine, but you may have a blocking issue on the way. Syntax is important, remember he is comparing it to Markdown, not C++. C++ is certainly ugly and should not be used as the basis for any comparison, certainly not for a word processor. I think he is just pointing out that general theme amongst these tools. They work for the people using them well enough, so they stay that way forever. It isn't that features aren't added or that they stagnate, it is just that thinking outside of the box is impossible.
ckoepp 13y ago
>>> "LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result" > It is not slow, it runs in under a second on most documents I have authored. Slow? I don't know about that, but compared to what? Even in word it does need some time to reach the "Save as PDF" menu, right? >> "Inconsistent" > I'm not sure what tinco meant by this, but it does in fact return the same results for the same file across multiple runs. Well, there is some truth about this. There is an odd naming scheme if you look at stuff like "enumerate", "itemize" and "description" - beginners get confused by this as they assume it would be called "describe". The same goes for most of the packages. This is somehow historical, but I think it also makes it unnecessary hard to figure out LaTex for beginners, right? Also the reason why LaTex needs several runs to finally create the full document. Nowadays you would do this differently I guess as there is simply no need to start the program twice if the application would be smart enough to call sub-programs (like biblatex) by itself on the fly. It would still run the same routine several times, but users wouldn't see it and it would be one command for them to build the document. That's another point beginners tend to go crazy about :) Having said that, I should add that I'm using LaTex (and XeLaTex, etc.) daily and there isn't a single program matching the power and beauty of it - I even design covers for my publications with it. But I'm able to use vim and emacs, right? 90% of the people are bloody beginners and it would be a shame to hide the beauty of a LaTex document from them. >> "It's syntax is ugly." Yeah, well...ugly is a bad term to discuss about. I like it and I think the syntax is way cleaner than reStructured text :D
- flying-sheep 13y ago
  funny that you mention rST. i also talked about it here, and i said that its only syntactical flaw is inline link syntax, and how that’s only a problem if you don’t write a lengthy document with it, because in that case, you don’t want to inline your links anyway. what is unclean about rST in your opinion?
danieldk 13y ago
It is not slow, it runs in under a second on most documents I have authored. It is slow. On my PhD thesis, it took more than one minute at some point, on an SSD. Not very convenient if you are tweaking figures and equations, and want to preview a change quickly.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  I agree that that aspect of LaTeX sucks. That said, as a matter of exchanging practical hints: If you haven't yet heard of \includeonly, you should definitely check it out ;)
- orbifold 13y ago
  Then you did it wrong. You should have just factored your thesis in multiple files, for example used one for each chapter.
  - nailer 13y ago
    That sounds like a workaround.
    - timtadh 13y ago
      Actually, it is a pretty useful feature. I break my documents up into multiple files and can compile pieces of them together for different audiences. Want an executive summary of my research just build the abstract + a summary. Want to review the literature with my advisor, build the just the literature review. However, I will agree that using it to address slowness of a build process is just a hack.
    - nimish 13y ago
      It is, but you have to remember latex is best thought of a programming language that outputs pdfs so splitting into multiple source files is useful, as is source control.
    - scintill76 13y ago
      I suppose you would say splitting your C++ into separate source files is a "workaround" for slow compilation times, too? It could be, but both are probably good practice anyway.

Guvante 13y ago

Inconsistent probably refers to the fact that there are subtleties that can mess you up, once it works you are fine, but you may have a blocking issue on the way. Syntax is important, remember he is comparing it to Markdown, not C++. C++ is certainly ugly and should not be used as the basis for any comparison, certainly not for a word processor. I think he is just pointing out that general theme amongst these tools. They work for the people using them well enough, so they stay that way forever. It isn't that features aren't added or that they stagnate, it is just that thinking outside of the box is impossible.

ckoepp 13y ago

>>> "LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result" > It is not slow, it runs in under a second on most documents I have authored. Slow? I don't know about that, but compared to what? Even in word it does need some time to reach the "Save as PDF" menu, right? >> "Inconsistent" > I'm not sure what tinco meant by this, but it does in fact return the same results for the same file across multiple runs. Well, there is some truth about this. There is an odd naming scheme if you look at stuff like "enumerate", "itemize" and "description" - beginners get confused by this as they assume it would be called "describe". The same goes for most of the packages. This is somehow historical, but I think it also makes it unnecessary hard to figure out LaTex for beginners, right? Also the reason why LaTex needs several runs to finally create the full document. Nowadays you would do this differently I guess as there is simply no need to start the program twice if the application would be smart enough to call sub-programs (like biblatex) by itself on the fly. It would still run the same routine several times, but users wouldn't see it and it would be one command for them to build the document. That's another point beginners tend to go crazy about :) Having said that, I should add that I'm using LaTex (and XeLaTex, etc.) daily and there isn't a single program matching the power and beauty of it - I even design covers for my publications with it. But I'm able to use vim and emacs, right? 90% of the people are bloody beginners and it would be a shame to hide the beauty of a LaTex document from them. >> "It's syntax is ugly." Yeah, well...ugly is a bad term to discuss about. I like it and I think the syntax is way cleaner than reStructured text :D

flying-sheep 13y ago
funny that you mention rST. i also talked about it here, and i said that its only syntactical flaw is inline link syntax, and how that’s only a problem if you don’t write a lengthy document with it, because in that case, you don’t want to inline your links anyway. what is unclean about rST in your opinion?

danieldk 13y ago

It is not slow, it runs in under a second on most documents I have authored. It is slow. On my PhD thesis, it took more than one minute at some point, on an SSD. Not very convenient if you are tweaking figures and equations, and want to preview a change quickly.

nhaehnle 13y ago
I agree that that aspect of LaTeX sucks. That said, as a matter of exchanging practical hints: If you haven't yet heard of \includeonly, you should definitely check it out ;)
orbifold 13y ago
Then you did it wrong. You should have just factored your thesis in multiple files, for example used one for each chapter.
- nailer 13y ago
  That sounds like a workaround.
  - timtadh 13y ago
    Actually, it is a pretty useful feature. I break my documents up into multiple files and can compile pieces of them together for different audiences. Want an executive summary of my research just build the abstract + a summary. Want to review the literature with my advisor, build the just the literature review. However, I will agree that using it to address slowness of a build process is just a hack.
  - nimish 13y ago
    It is, but you have to remember latex is best thought of a programming language that outputs pdfs so splitting into multiple source files is useful, as is source control.
  - scintill76 13y ago
    I suppose you would say splitting your C++ into separate source files is a "workaround" for slow compilation times, too? It could be, but both are probably good practice anyway.