83 karma · joined May 14, 2019
I am suprised, and keep being surprised, that people haven't yet figured out that there is an excellent tool, that is TeXmacs, that manages to make WYSIWYG the best way to write structured documents while having complete control on the output and never having to fiddle with details.
And also looking at https://www.jonmsterling.com/papers/sterling:2022:wg6.pdf, I find it beautiful ... but perhaps there are better judges.
Then you have to try TeXmacs http://www.texmacs.org/. It is completely independent from LaTeX and TeX and has - beautiful typesetting (better than LaTeX) - it is fully WYSYWYG, so you don't have to learn a new markup language - yet it affords better document control than LaTeX
TeXmacs (http://www.texmacs.org/) has better output quality and nicer programming (it is Scheme :-) ) and it is easier to use.
TeXmacs (http://www.texmacs.org/ and http://forum.texmacs.cn/), and it happens right now!
TeXmacs has an online collaboration tool, although as far as I know it is still experimental :-)
> 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.
I did not check the things that you do---described in your message above---one by one, but I expect you can do all of them using TeXmacs, as it is completely programmable using Scheme (which of course I like much more than a macro expansion language ;-) ).
According to Massimiliano Gubinelli (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), the reason why a converter is impossible is that the _syntax_ of TeX is Turing complete. If one had kept syntax and programming constructs separated, then a converter would have been possible. (I understand the argument only superficially but I trust Gubinelli enough to report this here).
> Future of TeX?
is TeXmacs, worth trying
If you are referring to the output of TeX, according to Joris van der Hoeven it is matched and surpassed by TeXmacs
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 ;-)
A little bit of trying TeXmacs and you could like it!
You need to try TeXmacs (which, despite its name, is not based on TeX ;-) ). www.texmacs.org
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 delighted :-)
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 programming language
I think this applies to the natural output of TeX's "mouth" as well, i.e. one could exapnd LaTeX macros till one obtains TeX primitives, but at that point the information on structure is already lost.
{
\def \l {\mathrm{l}}
\def \r {\mathrm{r}}
\def \Bl {\mathrm{Bl}}
\def \Br {\mathrm{Br}}
\def \B {\mathrm{B}}
\def \nIIom {n_{2\omega}}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interface_conditions}
\begin{aligned}
F_{1\l} &= F_{2\r} + F_{2\l} \exp (i\,k_2 L) + F_{\Br} + F_{\Bl} \exp(i\,k_\B L) \\
F_{1\r} &= -\nIIom \, F_{2\r} + \nIIom \, F_{2\l} \exp (i\,k_2 L) - \nIIom \, F_{\Br} +
\nIIom \, F_{\Bl} \exp(i\,k_\B L)\\
F_{3\r} &= F_{2\r} \exp (i\,k_2 L) + F_{2\l} + F_{\Br} \exp(i\,k_\B L) + F_{\Bl} \\
-F_{3\l} &= \nIIom \, F_{2\r} \exp (i\,k_2 L) + \nIIom \, F_{2\l} -
\nIIom \, F_{\Br} \exp(i\,k_\B L) + \nIIom \, F_{\Bl}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
}
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 the GUST fonts, by the way, I was able to export Word documents to pdf only be printing, as using the pdf converter some glyphs would "lose pieces"; and exporting via printing I would lose the clickable links. But I did not try with the Word plugin for the latest versions of Acrobat.