While Typst appears to be popular, I think that TeXmacs, https://www.texmacs.org/, which is a program independent from both TeX and Emacs, is the kind of program that we need for writing: a fully WYSIWYG, fully structured document preparation system, in which you edit the structure of your document in a WYSIWYG way.
When editing the structure on-screen, the user has no need to be aware that is doing so, as it looks like they are editing a text document; at the same time, the TeXmacs editor will guide the user to keeping a structured document.
IIRC TeXmacs supports only quite limited subset of what LaTeX and TeX can do. Just like LyX, it could create new documents but will often fail opening ones that were created outside of it.
I think it is so. As far as I know, there are no converters that can do that. A search with an LLM made me find https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.16562, a paper describing the ArXiv conversion tool from LaTeX to HTML; here is a sentence from the abstract:
"corpus-scale conversion work aimed at 90% error-free HTML (currently 75%)"
although there may be issues that I do not understand or did not see (I looked at the paper very quickly) that make it more difficult for the authors than for the simplest possible translation.
I disagree. Many people abhor WYSIWYG programs, myself included.
Having tried both TeXmacs and Typst¹, it’s easy for me to understand why Typst is rapidly gaining adoption and why, after — how long, over a decade? — essentially nobody uses TeXmacs.
I haven't tried TeXmacs (thanks to the truly abysmal name I assumed it was something to do with Emacs), but I have used LyX and it changed my opinion on WYSIWYG. It isn't a fundamentally flawed idea, it's just that most implementations of it are.
I think it is fair to point at a paper where Van der Hoeven argues in detail in favor of the WYSIWYG paradigm:
J. van der Hoeven. GNU TeXmacs: a free, structured, wysiwyg and technical text editor. In Daniel Filipo, editor, Le document au XXI-ième siècle, volume 39–40, pages 39–50. Metz, 14–17 mai 2001. Actes du congrès GUTenberg.
For why so few people use TeXmacs, it may be that it is because few people believe that it is worth trying, as one would not expect that it works so well :-)
Sure but that's just because they're making a point about how it isn't as shit as WYSIWYG implies. Really, it is WYSIWYG (even if the output doesn't exactly match the editing experience). It's just good WYSIWYG.
Ooo I thought of another example of good WYSIWYG - Qt Creator's form editor. The only good GUI form editor I've used. Again the editing experience doesn't exactly match the output (e.g. some layout features are visible), but it's clearly WYSIWYG. It just doesn't suck like MS Word.
On the other hand, you do get the full (La)TeX ecosystem to draw on. If I want to draw a commutative diagram, I can add tikzcd to the preamble, and insert inline TeX to do so.
There is some support for the LaTeX ecosystem from within TeXmacs. If you want a TikZ drawing, you can insert it programmatically into a TeXmacs document in a seamless way---if you have the same font for your TeXmacs document and for LaTeX it will be nicely integrated as far as I know,
You can see the blog post
https://texmacs.github.io/notes/docs/embedding-tikz-figures-...
I use it for all of the pedagogical material I distribute to my high school pupils. It allows me to type quickly and accurately math and explanation with exquisite typography. It allows me to edit freely and with total ease what I have already written: I don't have to look for the point where I have to edit because it is WYSIWYG.
I do not have to collaborate with anyone in writing so it does not matter that there are no users among my colleagues.
In my opinion it is superior to all other systems I tried (I tried many and a lot, and all of the main ones). And, importantly, it is equal or superior to the other systems in _all_ respects.
I would rather use TeXmacs, it frees you from the write-compile cycle while being equivalent (maybe in some ways better) from the point of view of the control you have on the document and the typographical quality.
In addition to making it possible to write easily, TeXmacs is also based on a markup language. It demonstrates that a markup language and WYSIWYG writing can coexist efficiently.
I just meant sensor pixels, because you’re obviously losing those when cropping, but you get the same perspective as from larger focal length (since you’re not moving).
I agree that the images correspond to the same region in object space. Further assumptions on optical resolution don't work well, as the optical resolution depends on the f-number.
The angular resolution depends purely on the aperture diameter, not the f-number. There should be no difference between capturing the image in high resolution, and blowing it up for a lower resolution sensor.
All that should be needed is a 200mpx sensor that can output the entire frame in 12mpx, and 12mpx of the central area in full resolution. It's similar to how our eyes work.
It will not, I specifically included the F-stops for that reason.
The depth of field is determined by the focus distance and the aperture of the lens. Both remain unchanged.
Note that 35mm F/2.0 is the same aperture as 70mm F/4.0. Both lenses have an aperture of 17.5mm. (35/2.0 == 70/4.0)
You can easily verify this with your favorite zoom lens. If you have an 24-70 F/2.8 available to you, you can verify by taking 2 pictures; one at 35mm F/2.8 and one at 70mm F/5.6. Crop the 35mm one to 25% area (half the width, half the height). Render both images to the same size (print, fill screen, whatever) and see for yourself.
reply