41–47 of 47 posts
The manual seems to quickly disqualify the system. The numbers don't line up in the TOC in horrible ways. Then a little ways down there's a wrap figure that's got a horrible spacing problem. These indicate to me that the shiny new foundations are really quite wobbly.
I think TeX is terrible, so keep it up please, but the examples all look really bad. If you want to sell someone on "this system will help you make beautiful documents", the examples need to wow.
Tex is no fun to use but this system is years away from being an alternative.
I think TeX is terrible, so keep it up please, but the examples all look really bad. If you want to sell someone on "this system will help you make beautiful documents", the examples need to wow.
I have used ConTeXt for a bit. And it made me like TeX again. The typesetting is actually great. It does ligatures, kerning, right to left scripts, Arabic, and more. I think LaTeX is where it went wrong, with all the incompatible packages which redefine random stuff...
Does it have a context-free syntax? Because this is basically the only problem with TeX: You cannot parse it.
IIRC there are DSLs that are context free and which compile down to TeX. I just can’t recall at the moment any.. it’s been years. The layout engine inside TeX is second to none. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?
I admit I'm prejudiced by the author beginning the README by boasting about how "beautiful" their own creation is, but I'm dismayed at the thought of trying to do preservation and archival work on documents whose rendering changes every time Harfbuzz has a mandatory security update. I was hoping to be able to soften this criticism by saying "at least it looks better than the output of the last layout engine I wrote",…