12/28/2023 0 Comments Not a valid boxstructure texmacs![]() For all of its many, many faults, *TeX systems are beloved for a reason, and unless I am missing something significant about TeXmacs, I don't see that it adds much value, while it has significant drawbacks. Needing to click an icon (or trigger a keyboard shortcut) every time I need an editing command is pretty unappealing for me, especially for longer projects.Ī number of respondents in the comments make similar (and other points), most of which I agree with. Beyond that, I am skeptical that a fiddly GUI interface will necessarily be faster or more efficient (or more navigable.) than a plaintext interface, especially to someone using a competent text editor like Vim. ![]() In the domain of document preparation, design, and typesetting, TeX is a professional tool where TeXmacs is an amateur tool. TeX and some other, non-GUI technologies take the other approach. Fully rendered TeXmacs documents may be of better quality, but the kerning and tracking in the screenshot documents is of Word-level crappiness they are painfully inferior to the TeX layout engine, let alone what you can get with XeTeX and fontspec. TeXmacs takes the first approach (along with the rest of the word processors). in terms of typography and composition quality. I do agree that high-quality WYSIWIG is an admirable goal for a document platform, and the difficulty of *TeX systems is pretty notorious, so a useful alternative might be welcome.īut, the sample documents/screenshots on the TeXmacs site don't do much to advertise the platform's "superiority", esp. I hadn't really given TeXmacs much thought, so thank you for the link to an interesting overview of the platform.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |