I used texmacs not so long ago and as a guile user I was a bit thrown off by the ancient guile version. Are there any plans to migrate to the newer and faster 2.2 or later 3.0?
I am not in any position to request things, but I got bitten a bit by the fact that macro expansion happens at every startup, and due to me loading a lot of extra modules for my own convenience texmacs took a long time to start.
In the meanwhile you can just load those modules lazily, TeXamcs does the same for some of its functionality, so you can look at the code to see how to do it. Compilation will help this but for the moment the port to Guile 2 in on an early stage and I cannot tell you exactly how long will take. Hopefully less than one year from now. We are all quite busy otherwise. Help is appreciated, especially from scheme programmers.
Thanks. I will show up when I'm going back to the port. Right now real life is calling :) but I plan to resume working as soon as possible, in few weeks.
* When you click one of the lower videos, nothing happens. That is because what actually happens is that far far up, the video got replaced. But the user can't notice the action happens scrolled off-screen. Very confusing.
* The brown link colours (e.g. link to "introductory videos" on http://texmacs.org/tmweb/help/learn.en.html) are almost indistinguishable from black text, at least on my monitor. It would be great to make them more visible, otherwise people won't find your good new material.
Do many people use TeXmacs? Now that you can export markdown and org-mode to LaTeX, TeXmacs doesn’t seem to provide much value. I use org-mode with embedded LaTeX for many documents and it works really well for standard stuff. You still are probably going to want to use LaTeX (or even just TeX) for complex documents like resumes and the like though.
I’ve tried using TeXmacs once and it never really worked well. Maybe because I already can write LaTeX reasonably quickly, but using it always felt slow and clunky.
Just as a data point, I used to take notes in class with this software (essentially blackboard after blackboard of math expressions). It is possible to type extremely fast with it and thanks to copy/paste/modify you can actually go faster than the lecturer. The wysiwym display is also critical to check for transcription mistakes in real time.
I was also using the software to do my own derivations. My handwriting is pretty bad so I actually preferred that to using a physical notebook.
Finally I did the typesetting of my whole PhD thesis with it. I had to split it in multiple files because at the type it would be very slow on very long and complex document but apart from that the result looked very nice.
As an aside, and this is just personal opinion, I always felt the love of latex in the scientific community is some sort of Stockholm syndrome. There is no arguing about the fact that latex is better than word for any serious writing and that the output is normally beautiful (if one chooses the right style, probably CV are the common exception) but the input method (let alone the conglomerate of tools/libraries around it) can be greatly improved. If latex notation is so good why then nobody uses it to write math on a blackboard? :) Texmacs (and lyx ) really bring something new to the table. What I think still remains to be solved is the topping to create new templates, right now it is a bit like working with raw css/html. I’m pretty sure something more intuitive could be built, something like the developer tools of chrome would already help.
Some people are using TeXmacs. But the number of the TeXmacs users are increasing.
> Now that you can export markdown and org-mode to LaTeX, TeXmacs doesn’t seem to provide much value.
This is not a difficult but a trivial task. Currently, TeXmacs documents can be converted to LaTeX. Some people use TeXmacs to write the draft of a paper and then polish it using LaTeX.
> I’ve tried using TeXmacs once and it never really worked well.
You may try it again. We have added plenty of features and fixed many bugs.
I think the point is another: TeXmacs is a structured editor so you work a bit differently wrt to a standard ASCII editor and if you try to force your previous workflow on it it will feel clumsy. Is a radically different sofware which requires some time to be understood and appreciated (I know because it happened to me). Give it a try when you have some time to spend. Working in a WYSIWYG environment, especially when doing math, means that you can really do things differently, for example do computations or research direclty on the screen, or take directly notes from a seminar in a form which will be as good as it can get. I'm an experienced LaTeX user and currently I touch LaTeX code only when I have to send document to editors for typesetting.
I have co-authored several academic articles in Org mode with exporting to LaTeX. The main reasons for choosing Org were that (i) we wanted to include the analysis code, table generation and figures in the same file as the manuscript, and (ii) the workflow was Emacs-centric. The Org markup was simple, readily allowed for inserting most LaTeX, had nice tables, but was fiddly for some more complex tasks. I recently needed to convert one of the manuscripts from Org to Word - pandoc was very helpful.
We could possibly have used TeXmacs, R markdown (especially with RStudio), some variant of noweb, or even Jupyter with conversion to LaTeX using pandoc.
One of the finest pieces of software out there. (It is thought to be inspired by emacs and TeX, but the workflow bears little resemblance to using either of them.)
TeXmacs is a really interesting and fun product. Tried several times. Love its idea. There are lots of bugs last time I tried. Glad to see it is moving forward.
I'm not sure when you tried, but I'm using it since 2006 and although there are bugs we are steadily improving it and personally I (and many others) use it everyday and do not experience any serious issue, especially in the last versions. Please realize that TeXmacs is a complex piece of software (is typesetting engine + macro language + UI interface together) so is more difficult to maintain than each piece separately.
TeXmacs is a beautiful piece of software, much better (in my opinion) than TeX. I wrote both my bachelor's and master's thesis in TeXmacs, and used it for years for keeping a research notebook, for homework assignments during undergrad, and for general note taking. I am delighted to hear that it is still being developed. Thank you to the developers for their hard work!
LaTeX is a typesetting system, so usually you use it together with an editor and a viewer. TeXmacs is one program which does it all in such a way that you can edit the typeset document directly and that what you see on the screen is exactly what will be on the final PDF. These features make it unique. Typesetting quality is comparable to TeX in the sense that you can well mistake a TeXmacs document with a LaTeX one. TeXmacs has an integrated picture editor and a presentation mode, and you can have interactive sessions in your document e.g. with software like R, Python, Scheme, Axiom, Reduce, etc... Actually you can even run code inside TeXmacs to produce images with libraries like TikZ/FeynMF/DraTeX/Asymptote/Graphviz whose functionalities have no equivalent (yet) in TeXmacs.
Since he seems to have used it already I also assumed (s)he knew the difference and that with TeX it was meaning a TeX-based workflow. But I wanted to make clear the difference for newcomers since TeXmacs is often misinterpreted as just a TeX frontend, which is not the case.
Many. Among which TeXmacs is a structured editor. You manipulate the structure of your document, from chapter, to sections, to environment, down to fractions and brackets all is an environment, which means that you cannot have, for example, (unwillingly) unmacthed brackets. Then TeXmacs contains the UI, the typesetter, an interface to other programs like computer algebra systems, an internal image editor, an internal versioning system, all in \sim 170MB (without other external dependencies). An is extensible via Scheme (much like Emacs is extensible).
But somehow I never realised that TeXmacs is actually not TeX at all, I assumed it was another front-end. How on earth did it get such a confusing name?
Historical reasons. Initially was inspired by TeX and Emacs. The project started in 1998 so now is hard to change the name. For the moment there is no consensus on a better name, so we stick with it and just try to make it clear from the outset.
I never used LyX so I cannot compare. The point I wanted to make is that in TeXmacs cursor movements are actually movements inside the document tree and there is a notion of current focus which is the innermost environment you are in. Many operations involve the current focus (e.g. you can switch from a Theorem to a Lemma or change round to square brackets with one keystroke). Then another peculiarity of TeXmacs is that what is on the screen is exactly what will be on the PDF, because the same typesetter is used for screen and PDF output.
Let's add also:
as a software system (that is independent from TeX), TeXmacs is programmable on its own (using Scheme). Of course if you want to add functionalities to LyX you have to do it in the LyX way (and possibly in the TeX way).
Well done guys; your efforts are really appreciated. I use LaTeX for everything usually through Rnw files so that I can embed R all over the place. For me, I think some amount of literate programming functionality would be essential before I could do much with this.
Does it support different types of layouts, and the sort of type-setting flexibility one might be used to with LaTeX?
I used this about 10 years ago to write maths-heavy papers. It was really fun. My favourite feature was you could tab through alternative mathematical symbols: type an equals sign, then <tab> until it became \equiv or approximately equal or whatever.
The project seemed to stall and I moved on to LyX. Nice to see it is back in business.
> The project seemed to stall and I moved on to LyX. Nice to see it is back in business.
Actually, Joris writes code for GNU TeXmacs on a regular basis. But he did not update the main site before. The old-styled main site (before) delivered the wrong message.
You can check on the changes history or in svn/git repository that development never stopped. Since the developers are quire busy they were not so effective in advertising the hard work put in TeXmacs. We are trying to change this.
Good to know that this exists.
I love LaTeX so much, and I've been using Overleaf for my projects.
As a student in Brazil, all my assignments have to be formatted in the ABNT norms. Doing it on Word is so annoying, so I used a LaTeX framework (abntex2) so I can only focus on the content and not on the formatting.
Just curious if you know whether TeXmacs users running the program under Linux experience the same keyboard latency (estimated at around 700ms) that those of using Windows have observed? Is this a widely know issue and if so are there any settings one can adjust to improve the typing experience by making TeXmacs more reponsive to keystroke input?
The keyboard latency makes this program completely unusable! I've been following the project for the last two decades hoping someday it would be useful to touch typists who type around 120 wpm. Until then ... I just keep using emacs + auctex. Sure looks nice though.
NB: I tried both slowphil's custom build on github and the native windows binary downloadable from the main web site. Typing lag (estimated at 500-800ms) is totally unacceptable in both instances.
I can understand, but please appreciate that the task the program has to perform to process typing is quite complex, especially because some delay is needed to allow keycombinations. Anyway we plan to improve responsiveness in the future. Thanks for the feedback.
