Pollen: the book is a program
docs.racket-lang.org
Pollen: the book is a program
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: Pollen: the book is a program
#2Re: Pollen: the book is a program
#3This looks very cool. Have you (jdoliner or anyone else) used this to publish a book?
Re: Pollen: the book is a program
#4This looks very cool. Have you (jdoliner or anyone else) used this to publish a book?
* https://beautifulracket.com/ (and this about making it https://beautifulracket.com/appendix/racketcon.html)
Re: Pollen: the book is a program
#5Re: Pollen: the book is a program
#6Would consider using this instead of LaTeX for my thesis, but not so much if the time investment is too much.
Re: Pollen: the book is a program
#7At the end of the day, how is this an improved experience for the reader?
Re: Pollen: the book is a program
#8Re: Pollen: the book is a program
#9This looks very cool. Have you (jdoliner or anyone else) used this to publish a book?
Matthew Butterick uses it to publish all his current books (as far as I know), check out some of them at: * https://beautifulracket.com/ (and this about making it https://beautifulracket.com/appendix/racketcon.html ) * https://practicaltypography.com/
https://practicaltypography.com/how-to-pay-for-this-book.htm...
Re: Pollen: the book is a program
#10It's a surprising shift. "Separation of concerns" is still a thing everybody wants to do, it's just flipping the idea of what should be the same "concern", where React considers every piece of a component to be one concern...and, it seems to work. I'm not sure I'm on board with this for writing, but the results certainly do look very nice; the books the author has published with Pollen all look gorgeoues and are very navigable.
I've been tinkering with Hugo for converting my projects docs to something that isn't in a wiki or a CMS (because I find I dread working with either a wiki or a CMS for large documents). I think it's probably "enough" for all of my needs, so I doubt I'll take the time to learn a bigger system like Pollen...but, it's hard to argue with the quality of the results.