Live data from Hacker News

Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

cynicusrex.com

51–60 of 154 posts

Re: Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

#51

I've used LaTeX for the duration of my Bachlor studies. The results are superior to Word, but that's just about where the benefits end. It's a nightmare to use and I don't see how investing time to learn it will benefit me in the long run.

I have the complete opposite experience. I used word for years and years. I started studying a bit later in life and learned latex first when I was 27. I was flabbergasted that it was not the default tool in the business world. Now I'd rather take an ice bath then write a larger document in word. I still really disagree with the poster though. Latex is not a good fit for Web pages.

What’s wrong with Word? Modern businesses are turning increasingly to document formats like Google Docs and Quip in my experience: online editing solutions where documents are stored online and are as easy to share at any stage in their lifecycle as sharing a hyperlink.

Quip has extremely basic editing features, to the extent that I sometimes find it stifling. However, it does a great job at providing 95% of what most business documents need: several headings sizes, paragraphs, numbered and bulleted lists, and the ability to embed pictures - with great collaboration tools.

Quip as a medium is like Hacker News comments. You don’t have a lot of formatting options to work with so you focus on the content rather than messing about with styling.

Most business documents are written and read in a short period of time. Both of the tools show you who from your organization is reading the document for collaborative reviews and allow people to add comments on content inline. Google Documents allows people to make suggested changes that the author/editor can review and accept, incorporating the edit into the document; or the author can share the document and allow people to make changes to it directly.

For example, when my team is having planning meetings, or we are reviewing a project plan, etc. the primary author will often project/screenshare the document, while everyone else also loads it on their computer. We can each see where everyone else’s cursor is (or highlights) and all edit the document simultaneously (if the author wishes) or leave feedback/suggest edits - that we can all see.

These kinds of features matter more in a business environment in my experience more than the ability to format documents in complex ways.

Personally, I find Quip too simplistic, because it does not handle things well like having multiple paragraphs plus a code block in a numbered list item. Google Documents can also have issues with things like this, but I rarely run into something crucial that I cannot do. (But it does have missing features: for example there is no way to add line numbers to a document — but these are less important now that the convention is for everyone to review the document on their computer simultaneously, rather than printing them out).

I find Word to be the most powerful of all of these editing tools and have the easiest time getting it to do what I want. However, (at least the versions I’ve used) seems geared around writing and saving documents locally. It would be my choice of tool if I had to write a long business document and Google Docs wasn’t fitting the bill.

There’s probably a way to set up collaboration features with Word like with the other tools these days, but the “best” collaboration I’ve seen has been through SharePoint which was painful: people had to “check out” the document in order to make changes, etc. I imagine that with Office 365 Microsoft has something better now but if they do I have not had a chance to use it.

Quip and Google Docs “just work”. They are web applications so there is no difference in what is supported between OS versions like with the Word.

In my career as a software engineer & businessperson I’ve rarely needed more than these types of basic text editing tools to collaborate with and convey ideas to my colleagues. Making collaboration simple, including the ability to simultaneously edit a document, or enabling people to read a document at their leisure (asynchronously), and add comments/suggestions/edits - which always refer to the authoritative latest copy (none of this monkey business with emailing around copies of Word documents) provides far more value than advanced editing features would.

If a person can’t get their point across easily using Word’s defaults, perhaps customized a bit by choosing their preferred font, including diagrams where necessary, then I’d question whether the difficulty is the editing tool or something else.

Unless you are producing specialized documents such as academic research intended for publication, or legal documents intended for submission to a court, etc., in my experience business documents rarely need more formatting than Markdown can produce; and easy real-time collaboration is a massive value add.

Re: Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

#52
post #6

I see the author's point. However it focuses almost entirely on the idea of documents/information retrieval. The web would not be at today's scale if it focused on written-word documentation. For better or worse, most individuals are spending their time online for entertainment.

Which is probably why most of the web now consists of SEO optimized entertainment that some people take way too seriously, e.g. conspiracy theories.

Re: Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

#53
post #49
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, HTML would be amazing if people weren't trying to use browsers as application runtime environments.

I don’t have much experience with web development, but lately I’ve been wondering, though, if those using browsers as application runtime environments should go all the way and eschew the DOM in favor of presenting a GUI in a WebGL canvas? Theoretically, the combination of WebGL and Webassembly may be an attractive platform for developing cross-platform applications. We already have Electron apps, but instead of usin…

Sure, one /could/ do that. And most web based games do that but then you have to re-invent a whole bunch of stuff. Scrolling, text layout, accessibility hooks, etc.

Re: Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

#54
post #46
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So write an application multiple times in multiple languages, package it into different packages, and distribute them through app stores? Oh, and desktop Linux users are out of luck because their market share is so tiny, and their distros are so numerous and chaotic that no-one is going to bother spending time and money on building applications for those poor sods. Is this the idea?

Which step in that process could not be automated? What's so fucking difficult on either writing a Cross-Platform UI or using a Cross-Platform framework? Is it not instead the case that today's hipster developers simply want to ignore that platforms exist beside their fancy McBooks? Is it not the case that today's developers prefer a bizarre interpreted untyped language simply because that's what they learned for bui…

Many developers in the industry have simply realized that the flexibility of html/css/js is simply unmatched by any other technology out there. Nothing else out there has been subjected to such extreme levels of scrutiny the web has. Nothing. Afaik, even the Dragon capsules use it for the UI layer.

But since you're such a boi genius, make something that can match and get ahead of it and i'm sure everyone will jump on your boat. Until then, your opinion will remain objectively useless.

Re: Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

#56
I see this argument so often and it simultaneously dumbfounds me and intrigues me. It’s inane, rose-tints the early internet, and focuses on one small part of the internet (websites) as being valuable and tosses the rest aside.

But the idea that we could make an internet that separates concerns again is very tantalizing to me. What if web services served data in a standardized, presentation-independent format, e.g. articles as plain html? What if those services then offered web apps to view content and competes to make the best viewers? Could we get back to a content-first model that still encouraged business to flourish?

Re: Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

#57
post #49
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, HTML would be amazing if people weren't trying to use browsers as application runtime environments.

I don’t have much experience with web development, but lately I’ve been wondering, though, if those using browsers as application runtime environments should go all the way and eschew the DOM in favor of presenting a GUI in a WebGL canvas? Theoretically, the combination of WebGL and Webassembly may be an attractive platform for developing cross-platform applications. We already have Electron apps, but instead of usin…

That already exists, but it would also mean the end of end-user customizations. As mentioned by sibling poster, accessibility would be nonexistent, but one also could not use adblockers, copy text, etc.

Re: Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

#58
post #29

PDF fetishism and blindly disliking HTML because it's associated with the current web is such an old trope. HTML and CSS are good at making hypertext documents, they are in fact much better at that than at making applications, despite that being the most popular use case lately. No one is making you write web apps, websites are still first class citizens for web browsers.

Well the article title is clickbait, the author wants the web to move to plaintext, but doesn’t actually seem to suggest moving away from plain html and css. (Still a bit silly though since the author does mention latex as an alternative too).

The only useful part of the article was the holding up of two example websites. If the whole article had been an informative survey of websites done right, it would have been a much more worthwhile read. The problem of monetization through serving ads that the author points out won't be solved by reverting to HTML only or even to text only. If a website costs money to host or create content for then it must generate revenue to pay the bills unless the author has other means of doing so. Making websites smaller will reduce those costs but won't eliminate them.

UBI is a non-answer to this, implementing it won't allow everyone to quit their jobs and make art instead. Ideally it's meant to be a social safety net, not a way to sponge off of "billionaires paying their taxes" and no ideal survives contact with implementation. We could hope for a marginal improvement on welfare at best (and that would be a good thing, even small improvements count).

The current web can and should be improved upon. Web browsers are in a "worst (that works) is best" situation after having roughly solved the software distribution problem. We need to take these lessons and move on to something better. Seamless execution of software in a sandboxed environment. That's how you solve the current state of the web, build something that is better suited to what people are trying to shoehorn into browsers and they will move all of their bloated apps off of the web leaving only pristine documents behind.

Re: Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

#59
post #19

No, no, no, that's not how Web .0 works! You have to make it worse as the number goes up. Web 2.0 added more interaction, more tracking, and more advertizing. Web 3.0 adds crypto scams. If Web 4.0 is going anywhere near LaTeX, it needs to add not just the typesetting language, but also the whole system of peer-reviewed academic publishing, and you have to publish at least 4 websites a year or perish.

Has anyone written the Web3.0 / Web4.0 TeX2NFT converter yet?

Re: Web4 Should Run on LaTeX

#60

PDF fetishism and blindly disliking HTML because it's associated with the current web is such an old trope. HTML and CSS are good at making hypertext documents, they are in fact much better at that than at making applications, despite that being the most popular use case lately. No one is making you write web apps, websites are still first class citizens for web browsers.

LaTeX is not equivalent to PDF, though that is one publishing format it supports.

HTML lacks numerous features which a first-class document-specification language should have, including grid layouts (only very recently possible), footnotes and sidenotes, and formulae.

The promise of LaTeX is that documents could be defined strictly in semantic terms, though my belief is that this would last for approximately 37.229 minutes after such a proposal actually hit the Web.

The underlying failure of HTML is that it is runtime compiled, not precompiled. This makes things far easier on authors and publishers, and far worse for readers. In the early days, the former mattered in order to incentivise content. Last I checked, incentivising content is no longer the Web's principle problem.

I've also been leaning toward LaTeX as a document speification language for hypertext systems, though I don't believe that alone is sufficient to fix the Web's ills.

Post reply on HN