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

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#71

Post by cbolton »

trueismywork wrote: post #68
cbolton wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's 3.31: $ cal(C)(M) = cal(E)_T^t (theta, cal(S)_t)^2 + C_t M_t^(-2/d) + cal(E)_T^"PDE" (theta_t, cal(S)_"int")^2 + C_"PDE" M_"int"^(-2/(d+1)) \ + C_1T^(1/2) [cal(E)_T^"div" (theta, cal(S)_"int") + C_"div" M_"int"^(-1/(d+1)) + (1+nu)(cal(E)_T^s (theta, cal(S)_s) + C_s M_s^(-1/d))] $ Would you have the equivalent LaTeX code for comparison?

It should be in the LaTeX sources on the website. This does look much more compact though. Just to now push it a little. I wonder if I can make the `1/(d+1)` in the superscript be not a real fraction but inline fraction.

You can do that by escaping the slash: `1\/(d+1)`

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#72

Post by 4bpp »

returningfory2 wrote: post #67
4bpp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typst does look very nice based on the brief look I took at it, but besides the questions of adoption and entrenchment that have been raised in parallel comments, the choice of Rust as the implementation language is also concerning to me. I think that Rust and the community that surrounds it are associated with a newer, simultaneously somewhat trend-chasing and decidedly paternalistic culture of software engineering…

I think the idea in this comment -- that users of languages inherit all of the perceived negatives of the community developing the language -- is just wrong. (I say "perceived" because some of the claims in this post are simply incorrect, such as the claim the Rust language developers think "backwards compatibility may actually be considered an anti-goal".) For example, over the last couple of years I've been re-impl…

I didn't claim anything about your project at all. A claim about a perceived tendency does not amount to asserting an absolute rule.

That being said, though, for any major project, it's hard to overstate the long-term effect of community pressure. I maintain a moderately-sized project using Gtk for its GUI, and am personally deeply opposed to the RHEL blob (which Gtk/Gnome belongs to)'s culture of "windowsification"/switching away from simple composable interfaces to overengineered proprietary ones. Yet, recently contributors successfully browbeat me into switching the config system from a legible textual one to gsettings (basically Gtk's implementation of the Win32 registry, with all this implies) - it was just too much pressure over what seemed like an ultimately minor thing, and I didn't want to alienate people who I depend on for a lot of work that being well-embedded in the wider community conveys competitive advantage in, such as getting packages into distro repositories. I'm left wondering what principles/preferences I would not compromise on, if the resident Gnome wizards were to all disagree. If your project grew so large that you couldn't do without the help of random Rust community members, and the majority of them got very insistent that you should not reproduce Knuth's idiosyncrasies, can you say with confidence that you would resist?

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#73

Post by trueismywork »

cbolton wrote: post #71
trueismywork wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be in the LaTeX sources on the website. This does look much more compact though. Just to now push it a little. I wonder if I can make the `1/(d+1)` in the superscript be not a real fraction but inline fraction.

You can do that by escaping the slash: `1\/(d+1)`

Cool

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#74

Post by SkiFire13 »

trueismywork wrote: post #45
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…

Typst has nowhere the control and reproducibility of LuaTeX. It's core syntax is quite weak and will be a bottleneck in future. It is especially weak for structure of huge documents, and for mathematics. LuaTeX is stupid but it still has features needed which none of the other markup languages posses.

This is quite baseless without any proof or at least example.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#75

Post by mmplxx »

YWall39 wrote: post #12
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…

> 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…

A legitimate concern given that Typst is still maturing. But I have at least one thing to say in its favour: you can lock the version of packages that you import. The only reason LaTeX documents full of \usepackages are reproducible ten years later is because packages are in maintenance mode, not because of well-thought-out future-proof design.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#76

Post by mmplxx »

AlanYx wrote: post #14
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…

Typst is exciting, but I wish their roadmap would prioritize features in common use in LaTeX like microtype rather than niche new features like style revocation.

Probably not as developed as microtype, but they have overhang, kerning and ligatures: https://typst.app/docs/reference/text/text

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#77

Post by cbolton »

trueismywork wrote: post #68
cbolton wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's 3.31: $ cal(C)(M) = cal(E)_T^t (theta, cal(S)_t)^2 + C_t M_t^(-2/d) + cal(E)_T^"PDE" (theta_t, cal(S)_"int")^2 + C_"PDE" M_"int"^(-2/(d+1)) \ + C_1T^(1/2) [cal(E)_T^"div" (theta, cal(S)_"int") + C_"div" M_"int"^(-1/(d+1)) + (1+nu)(cal(E)_T^s (theta, cal(S)_s) + C_s M_s^(-1/d))] $ Would you have the equivalent LaTeX code for comparison?

It should be in the LaTeX sources on the website. This does look much more compact though. Just to now push it a little. I wonder if I can make the `1/(d+1)` in the superscript be not a real fraction but inline fraction.

Here are the LaTeX versions from the article source:

  \begin{align}
    \begin{split}
     \mathcal{C}(M) = &\: \Et^t(\theta,\S_t)^2
     + C_t M_t^{-\frac{2}{d}}
     + \Et^\pde(\theta,\S_\inte)^2 +C_\pde 
     M_\mathrm{int}^{-\frac{2}{d+1}}\\&+ C_1{T}^{\frac{1}{2}}
     \bigg[\Et^\divv(\theta,\S_\inte) +C_\divv 
     M_\mathrm{int}^{-\frac{1}{d+1}}+(1+\nu)
     big( \Et^s(\theta,\S_s) + C_s M_s^{-\frac{1}{d}}\big)\bigg],\\
    \end{split}
  \end{align}
and for 3.12:

  \begin{align}
    \begin{split}
    \norm{(u_0)_j-\hu_j(t=0)}_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^d)} &\leq 
    \norm{u_j-\hu_j}_{L^2(\partial \Omega)} \\&\leq 
    \sqrt{\frac{2\max\left\{2h_\Omega,d+1\right\}}
    {\rho_\Omega}}\norm{u_j-\hu_j}_{H^1(\Omega)}\\
    &\leq \sqrt{\frac{2\max\left\{2h_\Omega,d+1\right\}}
    {\rho_\Omega}}C_{1,k,d+1, u_1} \lambda_{1}(N)N^{-k+1}, 
    \end{split}
  \end{align}
Note that these rely on user-defined commands \Et, \pde, \inte, \divv, \S, \hu, for example \renewcommand{\S}{\mathcal{S}} and \newcommand{\Et}{\mathcal{E}_T}.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#78

Post by cbolton »

trueismywork wrote: post #69
cbolton wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's 3.31: $ cal(C)(M) = cal(E)_T^t (theta, cal(S)_t)^2 + C_t M_t^(-2/d) + cal(E)_T^"PDE" (theta_t, cal(S)_"int")^2 + C_"PDE" M_"int"^(-2/(d+1)) \ + C_1T^(1/2) [cal(E)_T^"div" (theta, cal(S)_"int") + C_"div" M_"int"^(-1/(d+1)) + (1+nu)(cal(E)_T^s (theta, cal(S)_s) + C_s M_s^(-1/d))] $ Would you have the equivalent LaTeX code for comparison?

Thanks for your effort. With this example, I started testing typst again and it does look to have improved quite a bit. And it is of course extremely fast.

You're welcome, I hope you'll like it this time!

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#79

Post by mmplxx »

nabla9 wrote: post #44

The reason for LaTeX is the output quality, not the input. Real LaTeX users don't use LaTeX to write documents. whatever -> pandoc -> LaTeX -> perfect document ^ | LaTeX template ----+

Nice in theory, in practice you have LaTeX tools with synctex, command, environment and references autocompletion, live math preview, proper syntax highlighting, jump to error line, etc. Nothing like that is available for pandoc markdown AFAIK, except perhaps for Quarto, which may have its uses but is too slow for small/medium sized documents and its tooling is not that capable anyway. Besides, it adds yet another complex layer on top of an already way too layered stack.

Re: LaTeX3 Automatic Labels for Fun and No Profit

#80

Post by mmplxx »

rrgok wrote: post #8

I still wonder why anyone would create such awful grammar for a programming language. Considering LaTeX's initial release was 40 years ago, there were certainly other programming languages from which to draw inspiration. And I certainly don't believe that LaTeX DSL was the most suitable solution for solving typesetting problems.

I would say that the TeX language was designed for the final user to add the "last mile", not for piling layers of macrosubstitution on top of something akin to lambda calculus. As amazing a feat of engineering LaTeX is, it has abused the TeX language beyond its natural limits. The price paid in complexity for abstraction was high.
Post reply on HN