Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

commutative.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#21

Post by svat »

cbolton wrote: post #6

> Yes, we are aware of typst. I think it’s cool, but C++ hasn’t replaced C, Rust hasn’t replaced C++, Typst is unlikely to replace LaTeX. Likewise, many are aware of LuaTeX, but, again, the entrenching of a 40-odd year system is not to be underestimated. I am rooting for typst, anyway, and hope it finds its place. Well here's the process I went through in the last few years: I found out about LuaTeX, saw it was suppo…

> Then the LuaTeX devs moved their efforts to LuaMetaTeX and I found myself scratching my head.

This makes sense: They're essentially “done” with LuaTeX; it works fine and is distributed with TeX Live; it's up to others to use it. Many people are in environments (submission to journals that insist on pdfTeX etc) where they cannot use LuaTeX; the LuaTeX developers cannot change that. (It has minor differences from TeX/pdfTeX but they don't seem keen to fix it.) Meanwhile for those who are willing to use a new system, they might as well simplify (remove the backward-compatibility requirements) and make a better typesetting system more suited to the needs of ConTeXt.

In other words, users can be divided into:

- those who insist/need to use pdfTeX + LaTeX

- those who are willing to try something different, for which there's ConTeXt (with lmtx) or (further afield) Typst, etc.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#22

Post by crotchfire »

cbolton wrote: post #19
crotchfire wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That old binary won't link with the shared libraries on your machine 10 years from now. Depends on 280 other crates. Ye gads. "Yeah just use ancient binaries" is not a viable strategy for future-proofing. It's a lot easier to move fast and break things when you don't care about stability.

$ ldd bin/typst statically linked

You faked this. `ldd` never prints just the text `statically linked` for a statically-linked binary.

Here's the real output.

    $ ldd result/bin/typst
        linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffd2c4e5000)
        libgcc_s.so.1 => /nix/store/28d6zz06v3mpwdbi72fdw64qmmq8rhfm-gcc-13.2.0-lib/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f4fe68b9000)
        libm.so.6 => /nix/store/7x591g0d1kydp4dci0jvksi0qbn013v3-glibc-2.38-27/lib/libm.so.6 (0x00007f4fe67d9000)
        libc.so.6 => /nix/store/7x591g0d1kydp4dci0jvksi0qbn013v3-glibc-2.38-27/lib/libc.so.6 (0x00007f4fe4619000)
        /nix/store/7x591g0d1kydp4dci0jvksi0qbn013v3-glibc-2.38-27/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 => /nix/store/7v29y7b3b38x2hpgld698fw6k5mffam8-glibc-2.38-44/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f4fe68e1000)
You can't have truly statically linked binaries on glibc systems; they ditched support for that over a decade ago. On the 1% of Linux systems using Musl you can produce statically-linked binaries, but `ldd` will report `not a dynamic executable`.

You faked your console output.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#23

Post by YWall39 »

kldx wrote: post #13
YWall39 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author is a PhD student that has been using LaTeX heavily for 10 years. But what should a new student use, and why? When the only reason to choose LaTeX is old colleagues and gatekeeping publishers, I know it's a matter of time. Sadly its more than that. Will we be able to compile a typst file made today in 10 years? I have to do that regularly with latex. Will everybody one collaborates with also use typst? Ve…

Typst is a single file binary. The preview packages are versioned too. If typst breaks the API in ten years, I'd still be able to download the old binary and make a PDF from scratch. I can't begin to imagine the complexity in installing multiple texlive distributions side by side.

Yes, but its more complicated. In my case I have slides with a number of include files, some have not changed since 2006 (just checked), one does not want to maintain slides with same ancient version of typst, and then possibly have many floating around.

For me, they need to promise full backwards compatibility.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#24

Post by YWall39 »

cbolton wrote: post #16
YWall39 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author is a PhD student that has been using LaTeX heavily for 10 years. But what should a new student use, and why? When the only reason to choose LaTeX is old colleagues and gatekeeping publishers, I know it's a matter of time. Sadly its more than that. Will we be able to compile a typst file made today in 10 years? I have to do that regularly with latex. Will everybody one collaborates with also use typst? Ve…

> Will we be able to compile a typst file made today in 10 years? Yes! typst is actually better than LaTeX in this regard: LaTeX: contrary to how it sells itself, it's not good at compiling old files. The TeX core is fine but the packaging story is awful. Once I found a beamer presentation about LaTeX itself, including of course some slides about the amazing backward compatibility. Well, the slides failed to compile…

> LaTeX: contrary to how it sells itself, it's not good at compiling old files.

yes and no, that bit me last week, some packages decided to become incompatible. but in my case 99% of old files compile fine today.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#25

Post by cbolton »

crotchfire wrote: post #22
cbolton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$ ldd bin/typst statically linked

You faked this. `ldd` never prints just the text `statically linked` for a statically-linked binary. Here's the real output. $ ldd result/bin/typst linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffd2c4e5000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /nix/store/28d6zz06v3mpwdbi72fdw64qmmq8rhfm-gcc-13.2.0-lib/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f4fe68b9000) libm.so.6 => /nix/store/7x591g0d1kydp4dci0jvksi0qbn013v3-glibc-2.38-27/lib/libm.so.6 (0x00007f4fe67d9000) libc.so.6 => /…

It's not faked. I guess the nix recipe does things differently from the official binary. Try yourself: https://github.com/typst/typst/releases/download/v0.11.0/typ...

But it's true that when I tried ldd on a trivial static binary (compiling "int main() { return 0; }" with "gcc -static a.c") I got a different message: "not a dynamic executable". I don't know why you'd get sometimes one message sometimes the other...

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#26

Post by chaxor »

kldx wrote: post #13
YWall39 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author is a PhD student that has been using LaTeX heavily for 10 years. But what should a new student use, and why? When the only reason to choose LaTeX is old colleagues and gatekeeping publishers, I know it's a matter of time. Sadly its more than that. Will we be able to compile a typst file made today in 10 years? I have to do that regularly with latex. Will everybody one collaborates with also use typst? Ve…

Typst is a single file binary. The preview packages are versioned too. If typst breaks the API in ten years, I'd still be able to download the old binary and make a PDF from scratch. I can't begin to imagine the complexity in installing multiple texlive distributions side by side.

Yeah, this is also not a fair fight.

The "will it work in 10 years?" just swayed _immensely_ in Typst's favor.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#27

Post by YWall39 »

svat wrote: post #21
cbolton wrote: post #6

> Yes, we are aware of typst. I think it’s cool, but C++ hasn’t replaced C, Rust hasn’t replaced C++, Typst is unlikely to replace LaTeX. Likewise, many are aware of LuaTeX, but, again, the entrenching of a 40-odd year system is not to be underestimated. I am rooting for typst, anyway, and hope it finds its place. Well here's the process I went through in the last few years: I found out about LuaTeX, saw it was suppo…

> Then the LuaTeX devs moved their efforts to LuaMetaTeX and I found myself scratching my head. This makes sense: They're essentially “done” with LuaTeX; it works fine and is distributed with TeX Live; it's up to others to use it. Many people are in environments (submission to journals that insist on pdfTeX etc) where they cannot use LuaTeX; the LuaTeX developers cannot change that. (It has minor differences from TeX…

can I add a third class. - those who need latex+dvips+ps2pdf

and if you ask why, 2 packages: psfrag and pstricks.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#28

Post by [deleted] »

cbolton wrote: post #25
crotchfire wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You faked this. `ldd` never prints just the text `statically linked` for a statically-linked binary. Here's the real output. $ ldd result/bin/typst linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffd2c4e5000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /nix/store/28d6zz06v3mpwdbi72fdw64qmmq8rhfm-gcc-13.2.0-lib/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f4fe68b9000) libm.so.6 => /nix/store/7x591g0d1kydp4dci0jvksi0qbn013v3-glibc-2.38-27/lib/libm.so.6 (0x00007f4fe67d9000) libc.so.6 => /…

It's not faked. I guess the nix recipe does things differently from the official binary. Try yourself: https://github.com/typst/typst/releases/download/v0.11.0/typ... But it's true that when I tried ldd on a trivial static binary (compiling "int main() { return 0; }" with "gcc -static a.c") I got a different message: "not a dynamic executable". I don't know why you'd get sometimes one message sometimes the other...

[deleted]

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#30

Post by crotchfire »

cbolton wrote: post #25
crotchfire wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You faked this. `ldd` never prints just the text `statically linked` for a statically-linked binary. Here's the real output. $ ldd result/bin/typst linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffd2c4e5000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /nix/store/28d6zz06v3mpwdbi72fdw64qmmq8rhfm-gcc-13.2.0-lib/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f4fe68b9000) libm.so.6 => /nix/store/7x591g0d1kydp4dci0jvksi0qbn013v3-glibc-2.38-27/lib/libm.so.6 (0x00007f4fe67d9000) libc.so.6 => /…

It's not faked. I guess the nix recipe does things differently from the official binary. Try yourself: https://github.com/typst/typst/releases/download/v0.11.0/typ... But it's true that when I tried ldd on a trivial static binary (compiling "int main() { return 0; }" with "gcc -static a.c") I got a different message: "not a dynamic executable". I don't know why you'd get sometimes one message sometimes the other...

Having to use magically-blessed (what you call "official") binaries is not a viable strategy either.
Post reply on HN