Live data from Hacker News

Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

olivierpieters.be

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

#71

The ideal is to separate content from presentation. A LaTeX resume template has done that for an extremely small proportion of all the people who have used a LaTeX resume template.

What makes this the ideal? I'm not saying that I want my content completely mixed in with formatting options on every word, but by and large the presentation is a part of the content of anything you do.

To that end, I want it to feel natural and to be somewhat easy to reason about. Not to be absent.

Re: Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

#72
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes "Not really". The majority is not really everybody.

I think something has been lost in translation here. At least in the US and UK, responding with "Not really" to a statement usually implies that the statement is completely incorrect. As in, you aren't offering a simple correction from "everyone" to "a majority", but rather suggesting that it isn't even a majority.

I've lived quite a long time in the U.S if I say not really I don't mean it's completely incorrect - I do mean there are very glaring omissions though.

Re: Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

#73
post #61
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanted to add that I also dislike rating language proficiency on a scale. If you have 5/5 for a language, I expect you to be as knowledgeable as the authors of the language

I think it helps to say "relative proficiency in each language". For example, I would say I have 2/5 in Python, and 5/5 in PHP. I'm not saying that I'm the best PHP developer in the world, just that personally I'm much stronger in PHP than in Python.

But relative to what? How do you compare two candidates with "5/5 in PHP"? I want to know your absolute proficiency.

Re: Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

#74
post #73
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it helps to say "relative proficiency in each language". For example, I would say I have 2/5 in Python, and 5/5 in PHP. I'm not saying that I'm the best PHP developer in the world, just that personally I'm much stronger in PHP than in Python.

But relative to what? How do you compare two candidates with "5/5 in PHP"? I want to know your absolute proficiency.

By looking at everything else on their CV and portfolio. There is no such thing as "absolute proficiency".

Re: Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

#75
post #14

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I feel like LaTeX is not an efficient way to create a resume, unless you are very skilled with LaTeX macros and can essentially create your own "template", or modify someone else's. If you don't have those skills, you end up with a very bland, "stock LaTeX document"-looking resume, of which half the LaTeX resumes I see people share look like. I once tried to redo my resume in LaT…

Funny, but I actually ended up writing my own LaTeX class ( https://github.com/mvarela/orbit-cv ) to reproduce a Hugo-based résumé for which print to PDF worked horribly bad. I probably spent more time trying to find the way to print it to PDF than to whip up the first iteration of the LaTeX class.

Re: Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

#76
post #71

The ideal is to separate content from presentation. A LaTeX resume template has done that for an extremely small proportion of all the people who have used a LaTeX resume template.

What makes this the ideal? I'm not saying that I want my content completely mixed in with formatting options on every word, but by and large the presentation is a part of the content of anything you do. To that end, I want it to feel natural and to be somewhat easy to reason about. Not to be absent.

I mean, this is the basis of web design, and the programmers' long-standing criticism of WYSIWYG text editing. Perhaps I worded it wrongly: content should be tightly attached to semantics, but it should be possible to switch out the particular rendering used for those semantics. LaTeX resumes always fail in that regard: for example, in the template given in this thread, the semantics of "measures of experience in different languages" is inextricably bound to the rendering choice of stars. Or even more basically, the semantics of "a job or educational position held for a period of time with summary metadata", is with a LaTeX template tightly bound to a particular layout. Of course it is possible to design a TeX/LaTeX macro system that gives you separation, but, in reality, TeX is very wonderful, but learning the guts of the underlying macros is always going to be a niche audience.

Re: Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

#77
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes this the ideal? I'm not saying that I want my content completely mixed in with formatting options on every word, but by and large the presentation is a part of the content of anything you do. To that end, I want it to feel natural and to be somewhat easy to reason about. Not to be absent.

I mean, this is the basis of web design, and the programmers' long-standing criticism of WYSIWYG text editing. Perhaps I worded it wrongly: content should be tightly attached to semantics, but it should be possible to switch out the particular rendering used for those semantics. LaTeX resumes always fail in that regard: for example, in the template given in this thread, the semantics of "measures of experience in dif…

Don't get me wrong. It is a popular taking point. I just think it is wrong now. Specifically empirically. My "hard to manage" macros have maintained better than any of my friends resumes in other formats. With basically no effort, all told.

Re: Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

#78
post #36
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you tell that they used LaTeX if the CV is in PDF format, other than by guessing from the use of Computer Modern?

Quality of typesetting. Seriously.

See e.g. the first example at http://www.zinktypografie.nl/latex.php?lang=en

Re: Limecv – A LaTeX CV Document Class

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue it’s effective, not efficient, there. But that might be splitting semantic hairs

Like so many tools that originate in that time, it is very efficient after an initial learning curve. I use LaTeX to typeset theoretical CS things (papers, exercise sheets, ...), and those often contain a fair amount of mathematical notation. Expressing them in LaTeX math notation comes quite naturally to me now and doesn't require much thought at all. And when I do miss some symbol, there are excellent tools like ht…

I’m curious - what’s your definition of efficiency here? I would include learning time in that, plus cognitive load, and it’s clear you are not.
Post reply on HN