2016-04-04 14:24 GMT+02:00 Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com>: > > > On 4 April 2016 at 14:28, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> 2016-04-04 13:18 GMT+02:00 Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl>: >> >>> On 04-04-16 11:58, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>> >>>> Apart from being 'cool to have', full-fledged word processing is not a >>>> thing, that you dealing with on a daily basis in environment, like Pharo. >>>> >>> I'm sure that is the case for you. I wonder if that is the case for many >>> Pharo users. >>> AFAIK there are a lot of pillar users. >>> >> >> If it is for Pillar, then you don't really need a full-fledged, paper >> oriented layout engine. A web-like layout environment is probably enough, >> and much less costly to build. >> >> > Now count, how much world-wide resources are dedicated to web-based and > browser-based technology development and compare with our resource base. I > think it is foolish to set an unrealistic goals. >
I think that if we didn't have unrealistic goals, we wouldn't be in that community :) > >> For me the problem with the TxText model is that it blocks the >>> possibility of doing >>> that later, if and when there is enough development capacity to invest >>> in this. >> >> >> There is enough technology in the Pharo universe to do it (or at least >> something approaching). Sometimes, what you need is the ideas / the >> rationale from a project to do it. And I do believe TxText has some of it, >> even if you consider that TxText can't be extended to do it (and I'll >> consider that you are right on this). >> >> Now, it's on nobody's roadmap, so it may take a while to emerge (if it >> does at all). >> >> Last time, i installed LaTex package on my mac, it took maybe hour or > so.. About 1Gb of files, tools, compilers, GUI, text editors.. > Now think, how much years it would take to get remotely close to such > level of development? And where are those people or money that would allow > us to think this is viable path and we should throw everything into it to > get there? > Have you really looked into what is the core of the TeX algorithm? The fact that an interactive version of it was done multiple times in history? (Self / InterViews to cite the ones I know and have used) > It is nice to dream time to time, but let us be realistic. > I'd say that we have an environment where we can dream; where reinventions can be done at low cost (or at lower cost than others), that we can even afford to be wrong and throw a project away. Otherwise we wouldn't have Athens / TxText / GT ... Mind you, I'm not asking you to do it :) I simply know that some of TxText stuff is usable in that context. And that given the goal, shortcuts are possible. Regards, Thierry
