On 15-Sep-18 5:10 AM, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > On 9/14/18 2:38 AM, Baris Erkus wrote: >> If the intention is more like a complete WYSIWYG software package (or >> bundle) allowing users to produce documents right after installation >> without much hassle of Tex and other setups and preventing them from >> dealing with low-level Latex programming, it would be more reasonable >> to develop LyX as a bundle/package of LyX Frontend+TeX system+misc >> components. This would make the bundle more predictable and manageable >> if the components of the package are package-specific and they are >> developed specifically for the package. In this case, the TeX system >> should be customized by the LyX developers and should not be allowed >> to be updated by a third party software. This is the approach taken by >> Scientific Workplace and Bakoma, I guess. >> >> If the intention is develop only a powerful frontend that allows users >> to juggle around the TeX system, to do their own customization, allow >> different TeX systems to be used (and let the TeX developers to do >> job of developing TeX systems) and even maybe allow users install >> their own addons and functions to LyX, then LyX should have a module >> that can communicate with different TeX systems efficiently and should >> be immune to changes and updates in the TeX system. >> >> In my opinion, it is just not feasible/meaningful to achieve these two >> different-and conflicting-by-nature intentions at the same time. > Unfortunately, my own sense is that it is of LyX's essence to straddle > that line. On the one hand, we do strive to ease the learning curve for > people who ulimately need or want to know LaTeX. (Many of us on the > development team are like that.) But, on the other hand, we also hope to > make LyX usable by folks who know nothing of LaTeX. We have had > important developers (e.g. Abdel Younes) who knew very little LaTeX. > I've got many students who use LyX who are in the same boat. > > On a different note: It is worth remembering that LyX does not just > (directly) export TeX. It also exports DocBook and XHTML, and the latter > might long-term be more important due to its compatibilty with ebook > formats. If I had more time---I wrote the XHTML export code---I'd do a > lot more in that direction. But even though I don't, it would not be > difficult for people who cared about such functionality to do that work: > It has more to do with time and experimentation (e.g., what CSS works > and what does not) than it does to do with complex coding in C++/Qt. > Anyone who cares about that, please let me know, and I can direct you to > a lot of bugs that need attention. > > So, as so often with FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) projects, the > issues fundamentallly concern people power. We *know* what LyX's > weakenesses are, but we do not have the people-hours to address all of > them. All of us who work on LyX are volunteers, so we generally work on > what matters to us---but there are about half as many of us as there > were when I started, around 2006. And of course we are 'advanced' users. > > Riki
I have been looking into the LyX Bug reporter and changes made to the code by the developers, and I have realized that I am not actually too far away from code being developed. I studied C and C++ long time ago, but I have never had a chance to put it into action. After clearing up some of the major work and projects I have on my plate, I am hoping to get more involved with developing LyX. Who knows how long it will take... Thanks again to all... Baris
