Live data from Hacker News

Neovim

github.com

261–270 of 372 posts

Re: Neovim

#261
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't work fine. LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result, it has no API, is not extendable in a sane way, it's source code is so arcane there's books written about it, and if you've read the books the only thing you've learned is that trying to reimplement LateX is a fool's errand. And it's syntax is ugly. Markdown is better. Microsoft Word is better. They just…

1) You run latex twice only on really large and complex documents like books, and if you're writing books (not editing, see antipope.org for details) in Word, then you need professional help. 2) Markdown and LaTeX are designed for different tasks. Next you'll be telling me that if you have a leafblower, you have no need for a chainsaw. 3) Find me the structured and annotated data streams first - and show me that the…

markdown is perfect for forum comments, but idiotic to extend too far. if you’re a programmer wanting to write a book in markdown, you’ll find yourself thinking of markdown syntax extensions more than thinking about the book.

if you want extensibility and still a rather lightweight syntax, try restructuredtext. it has exactly one flaw compared to markdown, which is the hideous inline link syntax (which practically forces you to use named links). that makes it less suited for forum comments (where you might want to quickly inline 1-2 links), but perfect for books (where you can neatly specify your link targets below the current section)

Re: Neovim

#262
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hardly think so. Let's address them: > "LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result" It is not slow, it runs in under a second on most documents I have authored. > "Inconsistent" I'm not sure what tinco meant by this, but it does in fact return the same results for the same file across multiple runs. > "Needs to be run multiple times to give the correct result" This is tr…

>>> "LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result" > It is not slow, it runs in under a second on most documents I have authored. Slow? I don't know about that, but compared to what? Even in word it does need some time to reach the "Save as PDF" menu, right? >> "Inconsistent" > I'm not sure what tinco meant by this, but it does in fact return the same results for the same fi…

funny that you mention rST. i also talked about it here, and i said that its only syntactical flaw is inline link syntax, and how that’s only a problem if you don’t write a lengthy document with it, because in that case, you don’t want to inline your links anyway.

what is unclean about rST in your opinion?

Re: Neovim

#263
Sometimes people would like to have just a as-small-as-possible "classic" vi (like nvi, or vi included in FreeBSD) to just quickly run through bunch of config files in a [remote] terminal. So, vim-minimal works well for us.

I am not sure that libuv is what we need, and it seems like another "monster" to be born, like "modern" Emacs (which is "aware of" such a crap like gconfig).

  schiptsov@MSI-U270:~$ ldd /usr/local/bin/emacs |wc -l
  85
"Do not want" meme.)

Re: Neovim

#264
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't work fine. LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result, it has no API, is not extendable in a sane way, it's source code is so arcane there's books written about it, and if you've read the books the only thing you've learned is that trying to reimplement LateX is a fool's errand. And it's syntax is ugly. Markdown is better. Microsoft Word is better. They just…

1) You run latex twice only on really large and complex documents like books, and if you're writing books (not editing, see antipope.org for details) in Word, then you need professional help. 2) Markdown and LaTeX are designed for different tasks. Next you'll be telling me that if you have a leafblower, you have no need for a chainsaw. 3) Find me the structured and annotated data streams first - and show me that the…

Well, depends on the size of the leaf blower. If you can blow the trees down, certainly don't bother with the chain saw!

Re: Neovim

#265
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, thanks roel. I'm so glad to be relieved of the duty to try to improve things you use... And let me extend my apologies in name of all the authors of software whose extra features and nice bug-freeness you enjoyed at the terrible cost of going through the gruelling process of having to upgrade your software. Perhaps all us developers of modern software could get together raise funds so you could get a refurbishe…

Agreed the OP was harsh in response but the point made regardless. Your caviler attitude in this thread, and overall post, makes me question your maturity as an industrial grade programmer but that moves towards ad hominem instead of healthy debate...this is not a sleight and will agree I lost the debate before it started. Do keep in mind that modern software as you state are great tools for completed tools but very…

Thanks for not digressing :) To address your concern, yes I am not very mature as an industrial grade programmer. I have plenty of professional experience, but there's also plenty of experience still to be had.

I do understand my comments are inflammatory, and did not expect at all they'd be upvoted more than downvoted, but that seems to be the case.

Your standpoint is the one many in this thread have and I understand the least. This idea that "code purity" and functional purity are different.

The only reason that LaTex can not be improved is that its code is unaccessible. This means its functionality lies rigidly restricted in the 80s. In my opinion, there's nothing functionally pure about 70s/80s software. Back then, functionality followed from hardware restrictions.

Re: Neovim

#266
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't work fine. LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result, it has no API, is not extendable in a sane way, it's source code is so arcane there's books written about it, and if you've read the books the only thing you've learned is that trying to reimplement LateX is a fool's errand. And it's syntax is ugly. Markdown is better. Microsoft Word is better. They just…

1) You run latex twice only on really large and complex documents like books, and if you're writing books (not editing, see antipope.org for details) in Word, then you need professional help. 2) Markdown and LaTeX are designed for different tasks. Next you'll be telling me that if you have a leafblower, you have no need for a chainsaw. 3) Find me the structured and annotated data streams first - and show me that the…

You're completely missing the GP's point. Whether or not LaTeX is better than MS Word for task X is besides the point. It's that LaTeX has many obvious opportunities for improvement, ways to drag it into the current age, while keeping all its fundamental strengths. As do many similarly old tools such as Bash, terminal emulators and Vim.

These improvements aren't all that difficult to imagine, but they don't happen, because, well, why? GP seems to think an obsession over backwards compatibility.

Re: Neovim

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am honestly amazed at how feistily every 'hacker' here is defending LaTeX in response to your comment. I agree with you for the most part. This whole "it's apples to oranges" claim is bullshit. Both Word as well as LaTeX can be used for anything from writing a resume, making a technical paper with a few simple equations, to writing an entire Vector or Linear Algebra textbooks. When you have two options for doing th…

> This whole "it's apples to oranges" claim is bullshit. Both Word as well as LaTeX can be used for anything from writing a resume, making a technical paper with a few simple equations, to writing an entire Vector or Linear Algebra textbooks. When you have two options for doing the same task it's very much comparing apples to apples. So can HTML. Would you compare Word to HTML? You can also write your resume in Notep…

> So can HTML. Would you compare Word to HTML?

I don't mean to be difficult, but lots of laypeople actually compare HTML and Word for a common purpose, usually for making simple websites. Yes, people actually do generate their front-end page formatting using Word's HTML export. Again in that context, it's technically comparable (or worth comparing, rather). And they each have their flaws. I have used HTML/CSS for lots of documentation, and experimented with it for styling my resume even though those can be classically considered Word's domain. So I actually think comparing HTML and Word is really not that strange for a non-zero number of contexts. Typesetting via "formatting" is a pretty big part of the Word experience, and is a totally worthwhile context in which to compare it to LaTeX.

> Customizing LaTeX can be hard, but using it in a straightforward way is no more difficult than HTML.

I used LaTeX for every document I created in undergrad, but mostly because I wound up spending hours the first week of every course tuning a document to match the lab report/homework format, and there was a legacy of standards passed down from upperclassmen (ie plenty of nice handholding). After I left college, I've pretty much never wanted to open a LaTeX editor (or Word really, for that matter, because I prefer Google Docs).

Typing into LaTeX really is very straightforward, and is far superior for equations and the such, yes. But to start from a blank page, it's a nightmare without lots of handholding (or experience) to make your document legible. To some extent, so is HTML/CSS, for lots of things. A lot less so with Word. This is a bit of a contrived example, but I think of this as similar to running a "Hello World" alert window in python+tkinter vs javascript+Chrome on a Windows computer. It's amazing how difficult the initial setup and configuration in the python route is (you should try it on Windows if you haven't) compared to the "write code, refresh browser" in the js route. Even though the code is possibly less friendly in js, it is actually easier to get up and running with far less handholding. There's just so many other things slowing down and making the python+windows experience making it frustrating for a beginner. That's how I feel about TeX vs Word.

I would bet money most middle schoolers, if given a blank LaTeX editor page and a blank page in Word/GDocs to write just a bunch of math formula (some fractions, arithmetic symbols and some exponents maybe?) would give you something better and sooner with the latter.

> In my experience it's a lot faster than that.

This unfortunately wasn't true for me, or for a lot of other people. Maybe large amounts of images, or the wrong image formats, or numerous other causes can make exports slow. I don't know the details of why, but it was there, and it sucked. Maybe a side-by-side editor+constant re-render in a custom output format (that's optimized for TeX rendering way faster than making a pdf), would be pretty cool, for instance. I don't need to export to pdf after every tiny edit after all.

> It more commonly takes a minute, not an hour.

I'll completely admit I got a little overdramatic by that point =]. Sure it's more commonly a minute, but it's still full of much more "Badness 10K" than I ever had Word throw an Error dialog at me. And in my (weak) defense, I have wound up spending an hour fixing a LaTeX bug from a missed closing brace, and I couldn't create the document. and it would have helped if I could have noticed it the moment it happened (as opposed to after my next recompile which took 30 seconds). I feel constant debugging shouldn't really have a place in document-writing. Perhaps better error tolerance (a la HTML) and/or debugging would be nice.

To sum up: I'm not trying to put down LaTeX. But it has lackings, which can be addressed. I also wouldn't suggest to make LaTeX function like other WYSIWYG/WYSIWYM editor, but to attempt to address the root problem, ie, the feedback-loops times. Lyx tried to do that, but WYSIWYM wasn't the right answer (for all the people who still use regular LaTeX editors instead).

Well, I actually don't even write documents very much anymore so maybe I'm pretty disconnected from the whole ecosystem for a while, but from what I gather the tools haven't really evolved much at all in the last 4 years.

Re: Neovim

#270
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what most people would do? Use a dedicated program to create the plots and equations, export it as a PDF, and embed that in Word. I am not fond of LaTeX. However, for some fields there are simply no dedicated programs, while there are good LaTeX packages. For instance, for my thesis I drew a lot of attribute-value matrices (in the unification grammar/HPSG sense). There is a great packages to draw these struc…

Docbook and DITA are used a lot in the enterprise world.

A good example of Docbook is basically all recent Red Hat/Fedora documentation.
Post reply on HN