GiovanniP

8 ms·

31.
by GiovanniP 4y ago
If you are working on a LaTeX successor you could be interested in TeXmacs, which is a LaTeX successor which works very nicely in many ways, except apparently selling itself well :-) You could see there how it was designed and how the autho
32.
by GiovanniP 4y ago
Various senses that concur. It has, in addition to the line-breaking algorithm, a global page-breaking algorithm ... and for the rest may I suggest reading (it's brief) section 4.2 of GNU TeXmacs, A free, structured, wysiwyg and techni
33.
by GiovanniP 4y ago
> Very honestly, part of the reason I don't bother with any new "LaTeX reimagined" projects is because either (a) they are written by LaTeX nonbelievers who don't understand the complexity of beautiful typesetting, or
34.
by GiovanniP 4y ago
> It has superb output quality but the programming is awful TeXmacs ( http://www.texmacs.org/ ) has better output quality and nicer programming (it is Scheme :-) ) and it is easier to use.
35.
by GiovanniP 4y ago
> we could have a much better document format and publishing system around it. TeXmacs ( http://www.texmacs.org/ and http://forum.texmacs.cn/ ), and it happens right now!
36.
by GiovanniP 4y ago
You can check all of the papers of Joris van der Hoeven ( https://www.texmacs.org/joris/main/publs.html ) and of Massimiliano Gubinelli ( https://www.hcm.uni-bonn.de/people/faculty/publicati
37.
by GiovanniP 4y ago
TeXmacs is not a front-end for LaTeX, but a completely original system, superior to TeX and LaTeX under every point of view: typographic quality, ease of use, control over your document.
38.
by GiovanniP 4y ago
> The design space has been very rapidly moving towards online, live collaboration tools TeXmacs has an online collaboration tool, although as far as I know it is still experimental :-)
39.
by GiovanniP 4y ago
TeXmacs (www.texmacs.org), which is a finely crafted document preparation system realizing at the same time both the structured and the WYSIWYG paradigms. It is vastly superior to all other document preparation systems. In particular it is
40.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
> Or for something simple > y(t) = { y(0) b e^{bkt} \over y(0) \big ( e^{bkt} - 1 \big ) + b} TeXmacs finds that, by the way. I just tested it. And each piece of it: I tested the denominator.
41.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
I am surprised that you think that you can't program WYSIWYG input: I even suspect that the thought depends on habit of thinking, and not on consideration of the matter on its own merits. I did not check the things that you do---descri
42.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
> That friend kept asking me to write a converter that would convert a file of TeX to a file of HTML. I kept telling him that such a converter was impossible because TeX was a programming language and HTML was not. According to Massimili
43.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
> what's even more amazing is the quality of the finished output of the system, unmatched to this day. If you are referring to the output of TeX, according to Joris van der Hoeven it is matched and surpassed by TeXmacs
44.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
TeXmacs is vastly superior to LyX, but, more importantly, it is a completely different thing, with a completely different concept. The following is my opinion, which I cannot motivate in a detailed and well-funded way, based on experience o
45.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
Please take a look at the following comments thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27820466 , in particular at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27822662 where Massimiliano Gubinelli (one of the mai
46.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
Just out of curiosity, how much time ago did you try it? On the one hand the latest version, 2.1.1, runs very smoothly and has a complete set of features (the extensibility of course allows to augment them, just like in TeX); on the other h
47.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
One needs a different perspective. It is used by millions of academics who did not yet try TeXmacs.
48.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
Or uses TeXmacs
49.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
As far as I know the main issue there is that LaTeX is a Turing-complete language and no reliable complete export filter can exist, so in particular one cannot export reliably all of LaTeX to HTML
50.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
> Crisp. Please open any of the publications in https://www.texmacs.org/joris/main/publs.html (pdf versions) and then get your own opinion on whether anything else is crisp ;-)
51.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
Like amichail said in another comment, you could give a try to TeXmacs (www.texmacs.org). It is a WYSIWYG document preparation system which is at the same time structured and can be completely programmed by the user. The name comes from the
52.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
> I mean, that already failed for LaTeX. To me it's kind of an unwieldy pile of wierd imperative imports You need to try TeXmacs (which, despite its name, is not based on TeX ;-) ). www.texmacs.org
53.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
> I'll just make whatever I want in PowerPoint If you use PowerPoint, you might try TeXmacs (WYSIWYG, structured and programmable). > they are absolutely delighted by the bump in design quality I expect them to be even more del
54.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
> what would you like to see in LaTeX's place? a document preparation system in which - it is easy to read what you wrote (without having to switch between the editor and the typeset text) - customization is done with a sensible pro
55.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
Tex Gyre Termes could be. For an example, please look at https://www.texmacs.org/joris/zcomp/zcomp-abs.html (you can download both a pdf and the TeXmacs source---note that TeXmacs is not based on TeX, you need to
56.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
> For more structured content this is not possible: the natural output of TeX is a sequence of graphics boxes for the glyphs, or something like a DVI format. It is too late to retain semantic informations, e.g. about mathematical formula
57.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
I have an example on-hand for that---it is also equations, look at this, I need to compile it to understand it (it needs the amsmath package): { \def \l {\mathrm{l}} \def \r {\mathrm{r}} \def \Bl {\mathrm{Bl}} \def
58.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
My main "for" point towards GUIs is that one is able to read back easily what one wrote. On the other hand, to read comfortably a LaTeX equation I have to compile it; then for editing I have to move my attention back and forth fro
59.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
> The math equations made by Word have a distinctive appearance. Try and use the GUST fonts ( http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry ), Microsoft Word equations will look then excellently made. The last time I used
60.
by GiovanniP 5y ago
On the "import from LaTeX" Joris van der Hoeven advanced the argument that the impossibility of writing a general import file from LaTeX allows LaTeX to maintain its status as the main document preparation system for scientific ar

More ›