>> Alas, the last time I looked at Texmacs (a few months ago) it >> looked pretty well, but that doesn't change the fact that the >> basic functionality was destined for a math-typing secretary. >> Probably that's not a bad thing in itself, yet... > > TeXmacs looks good, but it is unusable for editing (even worse > than LyX...) > > Andre'
I'd be forced to agree. It looks pants and hardly does anything. :/ Problems:- - Doesn't support LaTeX - "TeXmacs uses its own free, structured data format and Wysiwyg postscript output is provided. It is possible to save TeXmacs documents as scheme expressions without loss of information" - LyX's approach is better IMHO - Its WYSIWYG *shiver* I dread to think what the LaTeX output looks like. - Doesn't AFAICS support input/output extensions - Obviously based on Emacs and programmed by Emacs hackers. *shiver down spine* (/me prepares for vi vs. emacs flame!) - Doesn't support LaTeX (too important to have just once!) - Their website is shit (OK, LyX.org isn't pretty either, but theirs is just pants. Not exactly much info on theirs) Good things:- - Looks pretty - I18N of interface (Russian looks good) - Has Guile support (Although I don't think their claim that users are able to use Guile is sufficient, only other programmers could use it, so its basically a way to get added functionality on the cheap without having other people join the project - meaning users have to install more than one package.) In Summary - I don't like it. LyX has its problems, but its still the best thing out there AFAICS. Adam. (NB Comments do NOT reflect opinions of anyone at UWA, except author)
