The insight (made here by jwr) that TeX and Emacs and Vim are local maximums is a great observation that explains why we are stuck with these three programs. I've used these programs for over a quarter of a century and often wished for shiny, new replacements. Younger HN readers may not realize just how old these programs are.
How in the world did Bill Joy come up with Vi in 1976? It lives on today as the velociraptor of editors, Bram Moolenaar's Vim. I use the T. Rex of editors, Stallman's Gnu Emacs, another dinosaur of software, yet unsurpassed in scope and capability. These are great at what they do and so flexible and extensible that it's difficult for any new project to catch up.
TeX is different. Knuth, one of the greatest computer scientists of all time, created TeX. His choices for development tools were meager, but with the help of /literate programming/, essentially invented by Knuth to write TeX, he wrote TeX using the Pascal programming language in the late 1970s.
TeX, like Emacs and Vi/Vim, has an extension language. TeX has a powerful macro system that allows it to be extended. LaTeX is a set of TeX macros that most users use to create documents. The number of macro packages written for TeX to support every imaginable kind of typesetting (chess notation and boards, music, etc.) is staggering. This accounts for the large size of TeX installations. One can easily download and install every package ever available and be ready to typeset anything. The core TeX program, however, is composed of 1376 extremely well documented paragraphs (small code fragments). It is a pleasure to read through Knuth's literate code, all available as a beautiful book (naturally typeset in TeX).
The features of TeX were effectively frozen in 1985. Knuth kept track of every error in TeX during its development. Since 1985 there have been less than 100 errors found in TeX [1].
The open-source communities around TeX (and Emacs and Vim) make it is difficult for any new project to develop the features that make it worth switching. This is the uphill climb that is facing Patoline. Will it succeed? I'm not sure because many others have tried and failed. Lout was a really good attempt [2], but it seems to have lost steam [3].
I would argue it's not so much the community (I'll bet there are maybe a dozen people who understand the source well enough to improve it) so much as the fact that TeX is feature complete, essentially bug free, and written by a genius. It really is an amazing piece of software which has no equal, even if you wanted to spend thousands of dollars. Why are we intent on replacing it again? I understand the gripes about the language, the error messages, and so forth. So design something that compiles down to TeX, not unlike what the Java(Script) people have done. Reinventing TeX just seems like an exercise in futility. (Nice duck logo though.)
I hate to be one of those that harps on "why the downvotes," but I really would appreciate tips on how folks would plan on testing these claims. Just imagining that we could do better than some good pieces of software doesn't really do much to say that we can.
For example, people have been imagining faster than light travel for a long time. I realize these don't compare directly, as we have reasons to believe upper bounds on speed.
So, I am curious if we have reasons to believe that the upper bounds on editors and such is really that much higher. For inspiration, consider [1].
Same for typesetting. Take a look at most of the papers at [2] and tell me whether translating these to new languages is really necessary. (Though, note that I am not arguing against this. Just asking how we plan to know that "things are better now.")
How in the world did Bill Joy come up with Vi in 1976? It lives on today as the velociraptor of editors, Bram Moolenaar's Vim. I use the T. Rex of editors, Stallman's Gnu Emacs, another dinosaur of software, yet unsurpassed in scope and capability. These are great at what they do and so flexible and extensible that it's difficult for any new project to catch up.
TeX is different. Knuth, one of the greatest computer scientists of all time, created TeX. His choices for development tools were meager, but with the help of /literate programming/, essentially invented by Knuth to write TeX, he wrote TeX using the Pascal programming language in the late 1970s.
TeX, like Emacs and Vi/Vim, has an extension language. TeX has a powerful macro system that allows it to be extended. LaTeX is a set of TeX macros that most users use to create documents. The number of macro packages written for TeX to support every imaginable kind of typesetting (chess notation and boards, music, etc.) is staggering. This accounts for the large size of TeX installations. One can easily download and install every package ever available and be ready to typeset anything. The core TeX program, however, is composed of 1376 extremely well documented paragraphs (small code fragments). It is a pleasure to read through Knuth's literate code, all available as a beautiful book (naturally typeset in TeX).
The features of TeX were effectively frozen in 1985. Knuth kept track of every error in TeX during its development. Since 1985 there have been less than 100 errors found in TeX [1].
The open-source communities around TeX (and Emacs and Vim) make it is difficult for any new project to develop the features that make it worth switching. This is the uphill climb that is facing Patoline. Will it succeed? I'm not sure because many others have tried and failed. Lout was a really good attempt [2], but it seems to have lost steam [3].
[1] http://texdoc.net/texmf-dist/doc/generic/knuth/errata/errorl... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lout_(software) [3] https://www.ohloh.net/p/lout