TEXmacs
Hi, I am just wondering, if there are any suggestions to Question 5 of http://www.texmacs.org/Web/FAQ.html No, to be serious, is there any chance that the two projects cooperate in some areas (pdf generation using pdflatex,...) ? Thanks, Rainer.
Re: TEXmacs
Rainer Dorsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Hi, | | I am just wondering, if there are any suggestions to Question 5 of | | http://www.texmacs.org/Web/FAQ.html "TeXmacs is a more ambitious project." Is very subjective and from my point of view not true. -- Lgb
Re: TEXmacs
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 10:13:30AM +0200, Rainer Dorsch wrote: > I am just wondering, if there are any suggestions to Question 5 of > > http://www.texmacs.org/Web/FAQ.html > > No, to be serious, is there any chance that the two projects cooperate in some > areas (pdf generation using pdflatex,...) ? No. (see Question 1 in that FAQ).
Re: TEXmacs
> | http://www.texmacs.org/Web/FAQ.html > > "TeXmacs is a more ambitious project." > > Is very subjective and from my point of view not true. Maybe it is indeed more ambitious, but LyX has delivered a better product so far... Andre' -- André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TEXmacs
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 10:13:30AM +0200, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am just wondering, if there are any suggestions to Question 5 of
>
> http://www.texmacs.org/Web/FAQ.html
>
I've made them to Mr. van der Hoeven directly as can be seen in a copy
of that email here:
*
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 10 14:26:29 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:26:29 -0400
From: Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Joris van der Hoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TeXmacs advantages over LyX list
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3243
Lines: 65
Dear Mr. van der Hoeven,
I have come across a Web page for TeXmacs and in the FAQ section you
state the advantages of TeXmacs over LyX as follows below. I have put my
comments in between.
1. TeXmacs is fully WYSIWYG.
I hope you will accept that this is a matter of taste. What's an
advantage for one person is a disadvantage for another. In my
opinion this is merely a feature that some people might prefer.
Still, for such people, this is an acceptable claim.
2. TeXmacs has a professional typesetting quality and nicer fonts.
The meaning of this is not quite clear to me. LyX uses TeX for
typesetting. Are you claiming that you are producing better and more
professional printed output than TeX?
If you are referring to rendering on the screen than I wish you
have used that word instead. The word "typesetting" refers to a
printed media (still).
But even that claim is not so strong to me. Who has nicer fonts
obviously depends on which fonts are installed on a system.
XFree86 4.x has brought us an anti-aliased rendering engine of a
very good quality. Is yours better? Can you show True Type fonts
too?
teTeX provides all nice fonts in a Type1 format, and hence
available for rendering under X too. Thus, any Type1 and TrueType
font (including teTeX ones) can be rendered in LyX (or any other X
application) through the regular X mechanism. Qt supports
anti-aliasing through X in an excellent way and it looks really
great in native KDE applications. I hope GTK will do the same in the
near future. LyX will soon support both of these toolkits (although
there is a KLyX already).
I do not consider seriously Metafont fonts since they are ugly,
starting with Computer Modern. Euler is a notable exception because
it was designed by Herman Zapf, of course. But it's available as
Type1 font in teTeX too.
The importance of using Type1 cannot be overemphasised since it
is the only way to produce a decent PDF. I hope you'll agree that
the ability to produce a good looking PDF is the most important
feature of any typesetting program nowadays.
To conclude: Can TeXmacs do typesetting better than TeX and
rendering of Type1 and TrueType fonts better than Freetype X module?
If not, this claim is invalid.
3. TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language.
4. You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems.
These are real advantages for people who need them.
Finally, what are the disadvantages of your program. Well, take a look
at your own list of suggestions -- they'll be quite obvious (no floats,
no two columns, ...). Besides, you are using a non-standard format with
still imperfect conversion _to_ LaTeX. That is quite unacceptable to any
scientist. Non-scientists will use something Word-like anyway. You do
not support Docbook SGML DTD, also. Future is in XML, MathML, etc.
I do respect your work and I believe that putting a sincere list of
advantages and disadvantages would be really beneficial for it.
Yours sincerely,
--
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
***
--
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
Re: TEXmacs
Sorry to butt in, but this is a b\^ete noir(e?) of mine... On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: > I do not consider seriously Metafont fonts since they are ugly, > starting with Computer Modern. Euler is a notable exception because > it was designed by Herman Zapf, of course. But it's available as > Type1 font in teTeX too. There's nothing fundamentally ugly about metafont fonts. It can be argued that they're a more sophisticated font technology than Type 1, despite predating it. Of course, if you think the CM family is ugly, that's something else, and fair enough. You're not alone there (although I don't agree with you). > The importance of using Type1 cannot be overemphasised since it > is the only way to produce a decent PDF. I hope you'll agree that > the ability to produce a good looking PDF is the most important > feature of any typesetting program nowadays. Point of information: Metafont fonts produce perfectly decent PDFs (although, admittedly, PDFS best suited to particular resolutions, since there is no way of embedding the 'outline' version of the metafont into the PDF, it has to be a particular resolution version). Acrobat reader simply fails to display them in a remotely pleasant way: this may be related to the fact that Adobe make money selling type 1 fonts. You'll note that they print fine. Jules
Re: TEXmacs
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 07:57:12AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: > > > I do not consider seriously Metafont fonts since they are ugly, > > starting with Computer Modern. Euler is a notable exception because > > it was designed by Herman Zapf, of course. But it's available as > > Type1 font in teTeX too. > > There's nothing fundamentally ugly about metafont fonts. It can be > argued that they're a more sophisticated font technology than Type 1, > despite predating it. Of course, if you think the CM family is ugly, > that's something else, and fair enough. You're not alone there > (although I don't agree with you). > That's exactly what I meant. CM family is ugly. Notice what I say above about Euler. Metafont itself is not an issue. It's a design. CM was designed by one of the greatest computer scientist off all time, but only a would-be artist. Euler is designed by one of the greatest designers of all time -- Herman Zapf. That's what makes a difference. Frankly, when I began using LaTeX long time ago, I thought that CM is a nice font. At least, it looked better to me than Times. However, the more I learnt about fonts the more I disliked it. I'm not a font designer, but I have read some books and talked to some people who know something about it. The general conclusion is that CM is not the greatest achievement in type art. Still, if I had to choose between CM and Times I'd use CM, for some reason. Since I have other choices I rather use something else depending on the type of writing. IEEE Transactions switched a few years ago to Palatino (Herman Zapf design again) from Times. I was quite happy about that. Palatino was also available in the default teTeX installation and I use it quite often. It looks great in combination with Euler for math. For less scientific kind of writing one can try Garamond, or one of the new beautiful fonts -- Minion. There were two excellent articles a few years ago in _Cahier GUTenberg_ (a journal of a French TeX user's group), by Thierry Bouche on the topic of math fonts and multi-master Minion fonts in TeX. http://www.gutenberg.eu.org/pub/GUTenberg/publications/publis.html Follow the links for Cahiers 25 and 26 and Thierry's articles. I remember seeing at least one of these translated in English and published in TUGboat too (http://www.tug.org). > > The importance of using Type1 cannot be overemphasised since it > > is the only way to produce a decent PDF. I hope you'll agree that > > the ability to produce a good looking PDF is the most important > > feature of any typesetting program nowadays. > > Point of information: Metafont fonts produce perfectly decent PDFs > (although, admittedly, PDFS best suited to particular resolutions, > since there is no way of embedding the 'outline' version of the > metafont into the PDF, it has to be a particular resolution > version). Acrobat reader simply fails to display them in a remotely > pleasant way: this may be related to the fact that Adobe make money > selling type 1 fonts. You'll note that they print fine. > I know that. When I say decent PDF I mean the PDF read from the screen. The printed page looks fine if you have a decent 600dpi printer. However, on a less good printer even the printed page won't look fine. The reason is that PDF format embeds them as Type3 fonts, which basically boils down to bitmaps. Hence, low resolution (as on screen or bad printer) amounts to a bad quality. Fortunately, teTeX comes with all Metafont fonts in a Type1 version too. If one changes a single line in $TEXMFPATH/dvips/config/updmap from false to true, one can get Type1 used for CM, Euler, etc. by default. I find it very important to have a readable PDF on the screen. I'm subscribed to both IEEE Computer Society and ACM digital libraries. I don't like printing so many articles (saves some trees I guess :-). I suppose people would begin reading my own articles off the screen at first. They might just as well dismiss them if they are unreadable, rather than decide to print them. Telling them that they look quite well when printed is simply not good enough. We are responsible for presentation of our work in any form. If it looks bad on screen, people might get the impression that we didn't make an effort to make it look better. Hence, having a good-looking PDF on screen is an imperative. Hence Type1 fonts. I hope I made my point more clearly now. :-) Finally, I would agree with you that Metafont is a fine technology, but Type1 has become de facto standard for printing industry. Best regards, -- Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
Re: TEXmacs
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 03:05:57PM -0400, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: > For less scientific kind of writing one can try Garamond, or one of the > new beautiful fonts -- Minion. There were two excellent articles a few > years ago in _Cahier GUTenberg_ (a journal of a French TeX user's > group), by Thierry Bouche on the topic of math fonts and multi-master > Minion fonts in TeX. Be an interesting challenge for my French ;) > > I know that. When I say decent PDF I mean the PDF read from the screen. > The printed page looks fine if you have a decent 600dpi printer. > However, on a less good printer even the printed page won't look fine. > The reason is that PDF format embeds them as Type3 fonts, which > basically boils down to bitmaps. Hence, low resolution (as on screen or > bad printer) amounts to a bad quality. Well, this isn't quite true. a) type 3 != bitmap. But the type 3 fonts generated by metafont are bitmap, so that is correct here. Probably you already knew that. b) bitmap @ (say) 600dpi, does *not* mean it looks ugly on screen. For example, consider the output of dvips (at 600dpi) viewed in gv. Looks absolutely fine. The fault lies entirely with acroread, which is /very/ bad at displaying bitmaps (it's anti-aliasing/supersampling algorithm is horrible for bitmaps). Try running gv on your pdfs, and they will look much nicer. c) bitmap does not mean it looks bad printed, either. After all, printers are bitmap devices. It just means you need a compatible resolution (either the correct one, or an integer multiple of the correct one). So you do need to know (guess) the output resolution at the time the fonts are rasterised to bitmaps. > > Fortunately, teTeX comes with all Metafont fonts in a Type1 version too. > If one changes a single line in $TEXMFPATH/dvips/config/updmap from > false to true, one can get Type1 used for CM, Euler, etc. by > default. True. Although I've been told by some people that some of these type 1s aren't really brilliant. They look OK to me. > > I find it very important to have a readable PDF on the screen. I'm Of course. But I argue it's adobe that's the main problem here, not the technology. Jules
Re: TEXmacs
> "Zvezdan" == Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Zvezdan> That's exactly what I meant. CM family is ugly. Notice what I Zvezdan> say above about Euler. Metafont itself is not an issue. It's Zvezdan> a design. CM was designed by one of the greatest computer Zvezdan> scientist off all time, but only a would-be artist. Euler is Zvezdan> designed by one of the greatest designers of all time -- Zvezdan> Herman Zapf. That's what makes a difference. I thought the cm font had been designed with input from Zapf too... JMarc
Re: TEXmacs
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:28:25AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: > > > > I know that. When I say decent PDF I mean the PDF read from the screen. > > The printed page looks fine if you have a decent 600dpi printer. > > However, on a less good printer even the printed page won't look fine. > > The reason is that PDF format embeds them as Type3 fonts, which > > basically boils down to bitmaps. Hence, low resolution (as on screen or > > bad printer) amounts to a bad quality. > > Well, this isn't quite true. > > a) type 3 != bitmap. But the type 3 fonts generated by metafont are > bitmap, so that is correct here. Probably you already knew that. > I said it boils down to bitmap, implying "in this case". > b) bitmap @ (say) 600dpi, does *not* mean it looks ugly on screen. > For example, consider the output of dvips (at 600dpi) viewed in gv. > Looks absolutely fine. The fault lies entirely with acroread, which > is /very/ bad at displaying bitmaps (it's anti-aliasing/supersampling > algorithm is horrible for bitmaps). Try running gv on your pdfs, and > they will look much nicer. > I absolutely agree. > c) bitmap does not mean it looks bad printed, either. After all, > printers are bitmap devices. It just means you need a compatible > resolution (either the correct one, or an integer multiple of the > correct one). So you do need to know (guess) the output resolution at > the time the fonts are rasterised to bitmaps. > Yes. But my paper will be most probably viewed and printed by somebody who has a different printer. > > > > Fortunately, teTeX comes with all Metafont fonts in a Type1 version too. > > If one changes a single line in $TEXMFPATH/dvips/config/updmap from > > false to true, one can get Type1 used for CM, Euler, etc. by > > default. > > True. Although I've been told by some people that some of these type > 1s aren't really brilliant. They look OK to me. > It's true that they are not as good as Metafont counterparts. One can really see the distortion of some letters if you print the same page using Metafont and then Type1 fonts. > > > > I find it very important to have a readable PDF on the screen. I'm > > Of course. But I argue it's adobe that's the main problem here, not > the technology. > I agree. I still like better that some company imposes a good format on me (like PDF) than a bad format (like doc). :-) Best regards, -- Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
Re: TEXmacs
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:56:38AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > "Zvezdan" == Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Zvezdan> That's exactly what I meant. CM family is ugly. Notice what I > Zvezdan> say above about Euler. Metafont itself is not an issue. It's > Zvezdan> a design. CM was designed by one of the greatest computer > Zvezdan> scientist off all time, but only a would-be artist. Euler is > Zvezdan> designed by one of the greatest designers of all time -- > Zvezdan> Herman Zapf. That's what makes a difference. > > I thought the cm font had been designed with input from Zapf too... > > JMarc As far as my memory serves me, Knuth and Zapf worked together on Euler only for American Mathematical Society. Zapf never used a program to design (he used Linotype devices only before) and Knuth was an expert for such things. :-) One can hardly imagine two better choices for these two parts of the work. I read a book: Hermann Zapf & his design philosophy : selected articles and lectures on calligraphy and contemporary developments in type design, with illustrations and bibliographical notes, and a complete list of his typefaces and do not remember seeing CM mentioned there though. It had samples of all his designs at the back and Euler was there of course. I might check it out in the library again if you're _really_ interested. Best regards, -- Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
Re: TEXmacs
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:56:38AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > "Zvezdan" == Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Zvezdan> That's exactly what I meant. CM family is ugly. Notice what I > > Zvezdan> say above about Euler. Metafont itself is not an issue. It's > > Zvezdan> a design. CM was designed by one of the greatest computer > > Zvezdan> scientist off all time, but only a would-be artist. Euler is > > Zvezdan> designed by one of the greatest designers of all time -- > > Zvezdan> Herman Zapf. That's what makes a difference. > > > > I thought the cm font had been designed with input from Zapf too... > > > > JMarc > > As far as my memory serves me, Knuth and Zapf worked together on Euler > only for American Mathematical Society. Zapf never used a program to > design (he used Linotype devices only before) and Knuth was an expert > for such things. :-) have a look at http://www.myfonts.com/Person295.html Herbert -- http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/lyx/
Re: TEXmacs
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Herbert Voss wrote: > Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: > > > Zvezdan> That's exactly what I meant. CM family is ugly. Notice what I > > > Zvezdan> say above about Euler. Metafont itself is not an issue. It's > > > Zvezdan> a design. CM was designed by one of the greatest computer > > > Zvezdan> scientist off all time, but only a would-be artist. Euler is > > > Zvezdan> designed by one of the greatest designers of all time -- > > > Zvezdan> Herman Zapf. That's what makes a difference. As I recall, Zapf was involved in CM to some extent (at least giving advice), but the real "problem" is that CM is modeled after Monotype Modern #8. If you like that font, then you will like CM; if not, ... Mike -- Mike Ressler [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I'm lame: I don't have my own website ...
Re: TEXmacs
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 07:29:54PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
>
> have a look at
>
> http://www.myfonts.com/Person295.html
>
> Herbert
>
As far as I understand English, that sentence says that Zapf and other
gave recommendations for improvement of Metafont _program_ _not_ CM.
Check out the book:
Hermann Zapf & his design philosophy : selected articles and
lectures on calligraphy and contemporary developments in type
design, with illustrations and bibliographical notes, and a
complete list of his typefaces
It talks about Euler _only_ and how Zapf first time designed using
program (with Knuths help) while designing Euler for AMS. There is no
mention of CM. Since Euler was designed much after CM, and Zapf himself
says that was first time he used Metafont (or any other font design
program), what's the only logical conclusion?
I just checked the Preface to "The METAFONTbook" and Knuth himself says
there:
\MF\ is a system for the design of alphabets suited to raster-based
devices that print or display text. The characters that you are
reading were all designed with \MF\!, in a completely precise way;
and they were developed rather hastily by the author of the system,
who is a rank amateur at such things. It seems clear that further
work with \MF\ has the potential of producing typefaces of real
^{beauty}. This manual has been written for people who would like to
help advance the art of mathematical type design.
Do you believe me now?
FWIW, The METAFONTbook is dedicated:
To Hermann Zapf
Whose strokes are the best
Best regards,
--
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
Re: TEXmacs
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:42:17AM -0700, Mike Ressler wrote:
> As I recall, Zapf was involved in CM to some extent (at least giving
> advice)
This was Euler not CM. And he designed it. Knuth was giving advice on
use of Metafont.
Check out the book:
Hermann Zapf & his design philosophy : selected articles and
lectures on calligraphy and contemporary developments in type
design, with illustrations and bibliographical notes, and a
complete list of his typefaces
It talks about Euler _only_ and how Zapf first time designed using
program (with Knuths help) while designing Euler for AMS. There is no
mention of CM. Since Euler was designed much after CM, and Zapf himself
says that was first time he used Metafont (or any other font design
program), what's the only logical conclusion?
I just checked the Preface to "The METAFONTbook" and Knuth himself says
there:
\MF\ is a system for the design of alphabets suited to raster-based
devices that print or display text. The characters that you are
reading were all designed with \MF\!, in a completely precise way;
and they were developed rather hastily by the author of the system,
who is a rank amateur at such things. It seems clear that further
work with \MF\ has the potential of producing typefaces of real
^{beauty}. This manual has been written for people who would like to
help advance the art of mathematical type design.
Do you believe me now?
FWIW, The METAFONTbook is dedicated:
To Hermann Zapf
Whose strokes are the best
>, but the real "problem" is that CM is modeled after Monotype
> Modern #8. If you like that font, then you will like CM; if not, ...
>
I said in one of the earlier postings on this topic that I still like CM
better than Times. For some reason. But I'd rather not use any of them.
Give me Palatino, Garamond, Minion, etc. -- and, of course, Euler for
math.
Best regards,
--
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
TeXmacs vs. LyX
Long long ago ... there was discussion about a scripting language for LyX. TeXmacs and Siag both use or can use guile. I'm thinking along the lines of interactive textbooks or just a way to provide sample solutions to equations in a graphics format. These are just thoughts that I pass on. Garst
TeXMacs math bindings ...
... sort of.
I've been talking to a couple of the texmacs people on IRC, and came up
with the following stuff for generating texmacs-style bindings.
Restrictions :
1. M-t is a necessary prefix (due to lyx restriction :/)
2. you must press space after finishing a sequence (another lyx restriction)
3. lyx still can't draw some things like \Ump (right ??))
4. some of the bindings used from normal text mode give a mathed warning (?)
Attached are texmac's shorthands.scm file, and a little perl script
for converting it into lyx bind statements as above.
So now you can type M-t <=/ to get nsqsubseteq
regards
john
--
"Way back at the beginning of time around 1970 the first man page was
handed down from on high. Every one since is an edited copy."
- John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
;;;
;;
;; MODULE : keymaps.scm
;; DESCRIPTION : setup shorthands for many mathematical symbols
;; COPYRIGHT : (C) 1999 Joris van der Hoeven
;;
;; This software falls under the GNU general public license and comes WITHOUT
;; ANY WARRANTY WHATSOEVER. See the file $TEXMACS_PATH/LICENSE for details.
;; If you don't have this file, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
;; 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
;;
;;;
(set-keymap (in-math?)
("E-E-l" "" "Insert a large left delimiter")
("E-E-m" "" "Insert a large separator")
("E-E-r" "" "Insert a large right delimiter")
("E-E-@" "" "Insert a big circled operator")
("E-E-L" "" "Insert an integral with limits")
("E-L" "" "Insert a left script")
("(" "(")
(")" ")")
("[" "[")
("]" "]")
("{" "{")
("}" "}")
("| ," "")
("| '" "")
("| acute" "")
(", |" "")
("' |" "")
("acute |" "")
("[ [ *" "")
("] ] *" "")
("A-a" "")
("A-b" "")
("A-g" "")
("A-d" "")
("A-e" "")
("A-e *" "")
("A-e * *" "")
("A-z" "")
("A-h" "")
("A-q" "")
("A-q *" "")
("A-j" "")
("A-j *" "")
("A-i" "")
("A-k" "")
("A-k *" "")
("A-l" "")
("A-m" "")
("A-n" "")
("A-x" "&q
Did anyone try TeXMacs?
I just found the following program: http://www.math.u-psud.fr/~anh/TeXmacs/TeXmacs.html It looks like a merge between emacs and TeX %-/ Did anyone try it out? Is it any good? JMarc
Re: Did anyone try TeXMacs?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jean-Marc Lasgouttes) writes:
[ TeXmacs ]
>
> Did anyone try it out? Is it any good?
>
It's impressive! This seems to be real WYSIWYG with LaTeX which i
find rather astounding. The user interface is not very ergonomic
(tear-off menus would be handy) and the functionality too (no undo).
But this is under development and will change according to the
included notes. It's a bit heavy on resources because the WYSIWYG
obviously - unlike LyX - consumes quite some CPU power. It didn't
feel very responsive on my iP233MMX with 64MB RAM.
Cheers, P. *8^)
--
Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany
--- http://ntama.uni-mainz.de
Re: Did anyone try TeXMacs?
On 23 Mar 2000, Paul Seelig wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jean-Marc Lasgouttes) writes: > > [ TeXmacs ] > > > > Did anyone try it out? Is it any good? > > > It's impressive! This seems to be real WYSIWYG with LaTeX which i > find rather astounding. Very pretty although I found the three possible formats for on-screen display annoying -- ended up using Automatic so I could resize the window and use it like a prettier version of LyX. I couldn't figure out how how to get chapters etc actually displaying in the appropriate fonts -- just got "" instead although their documentation was displayed in full glory. TeXmacs seems to do all its own hyphenation and you have to be in a display mode that corresponds to the width of the page to be able to print the file. This makes me suspicious of how they are actually using LaTeX -- I haven't looked at their source or the .tex files they produce yet. Anti-aliased text is so lovely though. > The user interface is not very ergonomic > (tear-off menus would be handy) and the functionality too (no undo). > But this is under development and will change according to the > included notes. It's a bit heavy on resources because the WYSIWYG > obviously - unlike LyX - consumes quite some CPU power. It didn't > feel very responsive on my iP233MMX with 64MB RAM. I found it quite good on my 128MB dual celeron-400 but then if that's the minimum machine requirement for having beautiful anti-aliased text I'll hold off porting it to LyX. Their documentation suggests that long documents (greater than a dozen pages!) can be very slow -- I might try loading our UserGuide.tex into it and see what goes bang. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: Did anyone try TeXMacs?
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 10:15:01AM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > I couldn't figure out how how to get chapters etc actually displaying in > the appropriate fonts -- just got "" instead > although their documentation was displayed in full glory. You need to select a document style (e.g. document->style->article) > TeXmacs seems to do all its own hyphenation and you have to be in a > display mode that corresponds to the width of the page to be able to print > the file. This makes me suspicious of how they are actually using LaTeX TeXmacs doesn't use LaTeX: it does the typesetting on its own (in real-time). It only use the latex fonts, and the mktexpk/mktextfm utilities.
Re: Did anyone try TeXMacs?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Dekel Tsur wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 10:15:01AM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > > > I couldn't figure out how how to get chapters etc actually displaying in > > the appropriate fonts -- just got "" instead > > although their documentation was displayed in full glory. > > You need to select a document style (e.g. document->style->article) That was the first thing I did when I opened a new document. That why I was frustrated. Perhaps there's a bug? > > TeXmacs seems to do all its own hyphenation and you have to be in a > > display mode that corresponds to the width of the page to be able to print > > the file. This makes me suspicious of how they are actually using LaTeX > > TeXmacs doesn't use LaTeX: it does the typesetting on its own (in real-time). > It only use the latex fonts, and the mktexpk/mktextfm utilities. Okay now it makes sense why I wants to be in paper or papyrus mode to print a file. Just plain silly if you ask me. The anti-aliased text is lovely though. Allan. (ARRae)
