LyX is rock-solid stable, on the other hand (and has fewer "gotchas" due to its lack of WYSYWIG). Way too crash-happy, on both Debian and Windows systems. I would love if TeXmacs improves, or has improved, but I absolutely can't recommend it for serious work. I found a particularly nasty case where just changing the type of header (chapter, sub-chapter, etc) crashed TeXmacs and caused all further attempts to open the file to crash the program immediately. And then there was the fact that it was super-easy to crash and lose all your work in an instant. Finding crap in the toolbars and menu was obtuse, or even what all the keyboard shortcuts were. TeXmacs necessitates using its own interface (which lacks my vim keybindings and Emacs customizations) TeXmacs's own interface is deeply customizable by the user via Scheme. TeXmacs fails at usability right off the bat, even being unfamiliar to those used to Emacs keyboard chords (it's sort of implied in the name to be for that use-case), and I found it a little better after changing it to a CUA mode (I think it was called "GNOME Look and Feel"?). For example the well known editors emacs and vim have both a LaTeX extension, as do Atom, VS Code and Sublime Text. Let's grant that the last time I tried to put TeXmacs into serious use was two years ago, but I don't see indicators much of it would have changed. Or you're writing your stuff in Org but you want something more visual for more icky parts of TeX like TikZ stuff or writing complex tables. One might find it useful for drafting a document, and later do the minutiae in Emacs. An is extensible via Scheme (much like Emacs is extensible). TeXmacs is a nice alternative for editing TeX directly. I really do wish I could agree, but sadly I cannot. Then TeXmacs contains the UI, the typesetter, an interface to other programs like computer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |