#Texmacs vs emacs free#

$texmacs vs emacs$

LyX developers argue that 'What You See Is What You Mean' (WYSIWYM) is a good feature. There are other ways to do visual word processing than the M$-Word way. However, WYSIWYG document editors do not necessarily incite the user to produce documents with no or little logical structure. On one hand they recognize that the era of command line interfaces and batch processing is over, and that the reasonable way to work today is with graphical interfaces and real-time processing but on the other hand, they stay faithful to the common sense belief that 'with a visual design system, authors usually produce aesthetically pleasing, but poorly designed documents' (quoting Leslie Lamport).Īctually that is true with 'traditional' word processors derived from MacWrite, and including M$-Word, which were initially designed as glorified typewriters. But it seems to me that those LaTeX front-ends are a bit schizophrenic.

Knuth designed it, and that LaTeX does a decent job at making TeX a little more usable.

#Texmacs vs emacs free#

Posted 21:48 UTC (Thu) by DeletedUser1650 ((unknown), #1650)įirst of all, I want to thank the LyX developpers for their continued good work in making LaTeX a more generally useful tool.īut then, I want to ask a question which I think is important: why is there so much work and investment in developping user-interface layers over LaTeX, and so little in good projects free of the TeX legacy? Here I do not speak only of LyX, but also of other projects with a similar goal, like whizzyTeX, or the various LaTeX editing environments.ĭo not misunderstand me, I agree that TeX was an considerable breakthrough in computer typography, back when D.