Why do so many autists use TeX - LaTeX?

>>57360222
Most of the people who use LaTeX are people in academia who need to write 100+ page dissertations with a fuckton of equations and symbols.
The autistic reason to use LaTeX is vim is more lightweight than any office suite.

>>57360222
well everything has it's learning curve and when it comes to equations nothing beats Latex. Just use what you know and are comfortable with, why bother relearning everything?

graphical document tools become terribly slow at 50+ pages

>>57360312
>not using it for making great presentations

Second dog is lulzy.

retards who want to install a 2GB typesetting package instead of using groff with mom macros which is more than likely already installed.

>>57360222
LaTeX vs ConTeXt. which one op? my autism can't take much more

Graphical tools are shit for large documents because you always end up with something not looking right because some random parameter got modified in that paragraph for god knows what reason and you have to start looking into every menu for it

in *TeX everything is in the source code, nothing changes without your notice

>>57360410
XeLaTeX

>coding text

maximum autism

>>57360312
> gedit-latex
> 249 Packages
> Installed size: 252 M
> Is this ok [y/N]:

>>57360472
Until you start fucking with bibtex and everything becomes a non deterministic multiple keep compiling until it works crabfest.

Still a lot better than word though.

>>57360505
Then you just use latexmk and let it worry about the macarronic build process for you.
Unless a compilation error happens. Fuck LaTeX compilation error messages.

File: it_just_werks.jpg (198KB, 490x742px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 490x742px

>>57360222

>why LaTeX?

Pic related.

>>57360535
>Fuck LaTeX compilation error messages.
What part of

underfull \hbox (badness 10000) in paragraph at lines 72--74

you don't understand?

>>57360610
I just ignore the underfull/overfull warnings as long as the page looks alright.

Am I a terrible person?

Freedom

>>57360734
No, fuck fixing messages like that

This coming from someone who's used LaTeX for almost ten years

File: 1477196039929s.jpg (21KB, 247x250px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 247x250px

Is latex the best for what it does, or should I learn something else?

Since I don't get the syntax still, what's a good latex editor for loonix while we are at it?

>>57360838
No, only academia typesets anymore. Most publishers want their shit in a semantic language like asciidoc.

>>57360838
LaTeX is the best there is at what it does. But what it does best isn't very nice.

>>57360851
why not markdown?

>>57360222
The Adobe alternative to TeX is FrameMaker, not InDesign

>>57360908
markdown is fine if you only care about xhtml.
Asciidoc was made to be the frontend for docbook XML. Docbook is an industry standard for publishing.

>>57360838
Kile is pretty nice if you use kde already

latex is literal autism

>>57360838
For writing papers or books, yes.

For presentations fuck beamer, seriously fuck it.

I use reveal.js + mathjax for presentations and it's beautiful. I can export animations from numpy to webm and stick them using plain old html.

For note taking I use Markdown + mathjax. It's amazing.

>>57360949
kek. op btfo

>>57360222
>"autists"
>literally all of my professors except for my super autistic chem professor who uses MS Word for some godawful reason

>>57361422
how would you know what program they use?

>>57361468
Open pdf in evince, click properties tab, see creation meta data.

Reading tex/latex docs feels like digging out dinosaurs. You need macros for everything, errors pop out of nowhere. It's a dead horse from another century.

>>57361475
and you call your professor autistic

>>57361492
Never said I wasn't.
Also, not that person.

Nigga have you ever tried to write anything mathematical without LaTeX?

>>57361468
Not him either, but most people rarely change the default font for latex (computer modern), so that's a pretty obvious tell that a document was made in latex.

>>57360222
TeX is for scalable, searchable maths and physics notation.

The beautiful type setting is a side effect.

What the hell does Id have to do with maths?

>I'd rather get RSI from doing repetitive formatting in MS word than be an autist

Got it, OP.

Where do I learn LaTeX?

>>57363066
The Internet.

>>57363066
From the wikibooks page

>>57363066
Copy paste templates of it for your research paper and learn the math syntax as you go along.

...or at least that's what I do, detexify is great but honestly I don't really "know" LaTeX, I just know how to make a decent looking paper lol

>>57363066
You learn the three lines of markup to write a paper, and then google the rest as you need it.

File: le_orange_jacket_guy.png (328KB, 451x451px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 451x451px

>WYSIWYG

>>57360472
>>57360410
seconding XeLaTeX. Everyone should switch.

>>57361468
My math and CS professors obviously use LaTeX by the font, and the Chem professor obviously uses MS Word because he uploads .docs alongside .pdfs for the lecture notes, and because its distinctly not the LaTeX font.

>>57363289
you can get computer modern in a ttf tho bro. I knew plenty of people with tech anxiety who would use MSFT with computer modern so that people thought they knew latex.

bummer that I didn't know about lyx back then. could've converted them.

File: 1459067737580.png (337KB, 610x540px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 610x540px

>>57360222
Should I write my resume in latex or should I just use HTML/CSS and (optionally) print to PDF?

>>57363295
I don't see why on earth they would do that. I think you'd have to be MORE autistic to pretend to use LaTeX rather than just fucking using LaTeX, especially when you need formatting and sections and math (which it does not take autism to understand).

>>57363066
https://github.com/VoLuong/Begin-Latex-in-minutes

>>57363349
I just rewrote mine in LaTeX because I didn't feel like installing wine. I prefer a more traditional look, so it worked perfectly for me.

>>57363357
never underestimate the power of insecurity.

>>57363371
>I prefer a more traditional look,
what does that mean these days?

>>57360312
It's quite nice for writing technical documentation and requires less work to write programs that generate nice documents from other text sources than the other markup languages.

>>57363413
> serif font
> occasional small caps
> no color

Items are only distinguished by differing font size, bold/italic, and indentation. If you google example resumes a lot of crap has stupid borders or colored text for headers and stuff.

Think newspaper, but without the restriction of justified columns.

>>57363371
Post your resume with details blurred

>>57360222
>Why do so many autists use TeX - LaTeX?
...because it works?
Why would I use something else when LaTeX does it just fine?

File: tanenbaum.png (37KB, 882x186px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 882x186px

Real UNIX men use troff. t

>>57360387
Needs a fedora

>>57363533
Do you get a lot of replies?

>>57363349
I made mine in Word. then moved it to InDesign. Haven't bothered learning how to design documents in LaTeX, so ID was the clear choice. I do plan on learning more LaTeX though.

File: Joke-Resume-page-001.jpg (148KB, 1275x1650px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1275x1650px

>>57363610
>>57363682
I've been slacking on actually putting in submissions, so I can't say if it's an effective format or not.

I have a somewhat specialized background, so I filled in some BS instead of blurring the whole document. It's a little slimmer than my actual one.

>>57363748
Thanks, gave me some ideas

>>57363748
Thanks, I like it

>>57363748
I love Butterick too :^)

File: end my fucking life.png (18KB, 488x156px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 488x156px

>>57363371
>https://github.com/VoLuong/Begin-Latex-in-minutes
Curse you, anon. Curse you. You'll die one day, and I'll laugh. Laugh!

What's the just werkz workflow for getting started with LaTeX on Linux? Is there any downside to using gedit as my editor?

>>57363975

sudo apt install texlive-full

or whatever package manager you use
leave that running for the entire 1GB download and install.
Then just use your favorite plaintext editor with texi2pdf.

>>57363748
>typing out LaTeX

>>57363951
It's not that funny anon calm down

yes he said shit we all see it

File: latex.png (37KB, 1862x892px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1862x892px

>>57363975
Install the fuckhuge texlive package, write your shit in Gedit and compile it with pdflatex.

TeXstudio is ok, but by no means necessary.

>>57364008
> not preferring consistency

>>57364005
>nearly 2GB download and 3.5GB install size
Holy shit. meanwhile groff with mom and eqn macros is already installed on your system

>>57364005
Thanks
>1.6 GB download though

>>57364034
why would you need to use emoji
that is my beef with that fucking document
why are they everywhere now?

>>57364065
Does latex have support for emoji?

>>57364043
>Not showing off the fact that you're using LaTeX

>>57364049
>>57364059
Yes, the package is big, but it's not because LaTeX itself is bloated, it's because it's installing every goddamn LaTeX extra package ever written. It's a headache for the first half hour while it installs, but it saves a lot of "oh shit I don't have that installed"s down the road.

Why don't they make WYSIWYG lightweight editor for Latex? It would be quite handy and would push the format to masses.

File: apparently not.png (100KB, 1468x656px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1468x656px

>>57364085

>>57364090
But what does it do that groff can't? Why is it worth the extra 3.5GB of disk space?

>>57364128
>latex
>WYSIWYG
hah. neo-/g/

>>57364139
What is the real problem with that? Or will it become just another bloated office suite as you imply?

>>57364149
It would become just that.
Did you ever use Dreamweaver?

>>57364160
Well, nowadays compilers can write better assembly code than humans.

>>57364192
Sure, but it's not designed to be human readable. You might as well use InDesign if you want WYSIWYG

>>57364130
>groff
>a serious contender for actually laying out text
>implying
look, it's dependable, and it just werks for spitting out basic PDFs, but LaTeX has a lot of shit for layout which makes it a much better option.

Better math support, better layout, more extensions and more extensible (it even does shit like presentations), also technically turing-complete (groff I believe is exclusively a markup language), and a lot more. Yeah, if you just want to use a dead-simple text layout program to get good-enough results, go with groff. If you're publishing a paper, writing a book, or doing anything which requires your text to look top-notch, use LaTeX.

>>57364204
More books are written in troff than latex.

File: groff.png (176KB, 1490x616px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1490x616px

>>57364235
Your point is? I mean, people use sub-optimal tools all the time. I'm saying that people *should* use LaTeX because it's the best in class for putting text onto a page, not that people *do* use it.
Also, I forgot to attach an image because I'm a retard. Groff's official docs admit that it doesn't have a proper line layout algorithm, although it does say that Troff has the same one LaTeX uses, which is nice. LaTeX still has better mathematics support, more extensions, and better support online if you can't figure something out.

>>57360838
Gummi and texstudio are pretty good.

useful for science, chemistry, formulas, etc.

dropouts like to use it to write their resume in which they never finish because it's complete shit because they're dropouts. and then try to pass themselves off online as appearing intelligent for using *tex

other type of retard who does this are graphic design losers who keep repeating "muh typography", typically the ones who insist they're "design experts" for making their site 300px width for "eye control" and "readability" and always have a big fat empty portfolio page because nobody has ever ever hired them

>>57364280
Meanwhile in the real world.
https://rkrishnan.org/posts/2016-03-07-how-is-gopl-typeset.html
Books are still being made in groff. I haven't seen a latex book in...well literally a decade.

>>57364379
I've only seen books in my Uni library which are basically just a bunch of conference papers in a book. I think I also saw some other book that looked like LaTeX

>>57364320
>science
this, works really well for equations or chemical formulas, and is pretty good at making decent looking tables with bigger sets of data, importing csv values ect.
>resumes, dropouts ect.
all the shitposting aside, its actually pretty good for resumes, just make the template, edit it after so long, pdftex done. nice looking resume.

>>57364379
>I'm saying that people *should* use LaTeX because it's the best in class for putting text onto a page, not that people *do* use it.
>Meanwhile in the real world.
lern2reed, nigger
I get it, *roff is being used in the general publishing, while LaTeX is used in academia. It doesn't change the fact that LaTeX is still technically better than *roff as far as layout capability goes.

>>57364456
But you're wrong. Troff can beat latex hands down. Even tanenbaum (the dragon OS book) says it >>57363662
Hell, even Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment used sun's troff to produce Camera-ready copys. (ie the publisher didn't touch the copy)

>>57364320

the real issue here is
>installing 3gb of data just to make a resume

>>57364500
LaTeX still beats Troff in a few ways. Its mathematics layout is more precise, and there are more packages with better support for more advanced math syntax. The graphing packages in LaTeX are far superior and more capable than Troff's grap. The advantage *roff has is that UNIX fans like it more, and that it's more ubiquitous among Unix-y operating systems. Groff is out the door because of its greedy line algorithm, but you are at least partially correct in that Troff is a good competitor for LaTeX. However, LaTeX still comes out on top in just how much it can do.

Also, LaTeX has microtype, troff lacks it, to my knowledge. Microtype is subtle, but a critical package for my uses (longform pure english documents). See:
http://www.khirevich.com/latex/microtype/

>>57364564
this

latex sucks balls, it is autism by definition, I mean imagine the amount of source code to be required, just to write some fucking TEXT DOCUMENT like a cv

>>57364564
>3gb
where are you getting this number? I don't even know how you could from the graphical front ends to it either.

File: Screenshot from 2016-11-03 02-05-19.png (57KB, 684x647px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 684x647px

>>57364632

File: 1463084149569.png (168KB, 727x682px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 727x682px

>>57364658
doun't worry, itd's a good brogram. itd does what itd does, bud itd does itd good

>>57364658
I don't think you need all billion of the fonts to write a resume

>>57364690
That's the texlive-full package as mentioned in the thread. Take out the fonts how much space would that save me? 500meg? a gig? still fucking way too big.

File: 1459238445415.jpg (50KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 655x527px

>>57364658
> 3,5 GB
autism

File: pacgraph.png (797KB, 2570x1890px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 2570x1890px

>>57364700
more than that, I think.

>>57363748
That's actually pretty nice. how much latex do you need to know to write up a clean document like that?
Would you mind uploading the tex file so I can play around if it's nothing too complicated?

>>57364732
3.5 GB

File: 1476076742439.png (11KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 645x773px

>>57364715
what's that and how make?

>>57364751
learn how to read

>>57364751
Just look at the filename. It's a pacman feature called pacgraph, a map of all of the installed packages by size. Biggest text = biggest package.

>>57364778
>Arch babby's needing pictures instead of text.
Why am i amused.

>>57364658
or you could install tetex and accomplish the same thing with 12.7 mb? I mean just a thought.

>>57364794
what's a "babby" and what does possess?

?/:^)

>>57364805
>not maintained since 2006

>>57364658
or you could just use groff since it's already on your system.

File: Screenshot from 2016-11-03 02-18-35.png (35KB, 571x398px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 571x398px

The texlive-most package on Arch is just over 1 Gig. 3/4 of that is fonts. I don't think thats unreasonable when it includes functionality like tools for writing music notation.

I use it for my resume, hardware documentation, and used to use it for electromagnetics homework.

Look at packages like bytefield and you'll see why I don't care about the size.

>>57364732
Some things aren't done the best way, but it's pretty straight forward. I guess I can deal with my brand being cheapened.

http://pastebin.com/0Zu4h1hc

File: fucking implying.jpg (28KB, 2668x420px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 2668x420px

>>57364838
>just use groff
don't use groff

File: kernighan.png (23KB, 638x194px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 638x194px

>>57364860
Meanwhile Tanenbaum >>57363662 and
Kernighan "The Go Programming Language" can get pinpoint text placement.

>>57364848
Thanks a lot, I'm really only interested in seeing how things are done, there's only so much one can gleam from a basic tutorial. You can be pretty sure of your exclusivity being maintained.

No one in industry uses GayTeX.

>>57364129
Protip: you need an emoji font setup in your document for that.

>>57364912
what is the industry standard beyond gui based programs?

>>57365150
asciidoc as a frontend to docbook XML

>>57360222
What is wrong with latex dog .


He looks Steve

I use it because I know I can work with a .tex file on any machine and use that tex file to make any other standard format when requested.

On *nix, on Windows, on something else? tex works. Need a doc, docx, odf, pdf, some other esoteric shit? I can export to that and it will always look correct and not lose any desired input.

The fact that it's simpler is a nice bonus too, I type in what I want and it will look like that, I remove what I don't want anymore and it's gone, I don't have to hunt through menus or worry that moving X will break the formatting or fuck up some inherited style rule, etc.

>>57365247
all of these reasons justify markdown or plain text, but i don't see any rationale for using a high fidelity typesetting language like latex

i'm a phd student. i love using latex. but if my options were, for instance, markdown vs latex (e.g. for a simple blog post or whatever), i would probably prefer markdown. same for notes. same for most other things that won't be going off to be printed or published someplace.

so i'm curious why someone not in academia would bother to use latex very much. templates don't seem to be a big part of employees' lives (i hear contractors use latex templates for invoices, so there's that i guess), but otherwise the learning curve seems too steep for people not strongly incentivized to use it (e.g. to take advantage of bibtex citations and stuff).

>>57365304
Both seem fine to me, I just happened to learn tex before other markup/markdown languages. I like knowing that I can do something more complex if I need it and the bonus is that I may not even need to do it myself, there are tons of existing templates out there so if I need it I just grab it, insert my specific data, and I'm done with the document.

I'm in favor of any compiled/composed text from markup over non-portable formats with questionable editors. I just want something I can rely on and edit with anything easily.

>>57365333
hmm, i see. i think you should give markdown a try. it's relatively lightweight and definitely not suited a pretty significant chunk of things, but it's much more web friendly. if you really want, you could use something like pandoc to convert tex files to markdown to see what some things would look like (although be warned that anything complex will either turn into incomprehensible code or just get ruined in the conversion).

i really, really like the complementary roles of markdown and latex, though. markdown is becoming the lingua franca for web documents these days, and latex is the established and probably eternal king of anything vaguely formal.

the thing that bugs me about latex is that if you find yourself trying to do something nobody's ever done before (or more likely if you don't know the right terms to surface the relevant documentation or Stack Overflow question), your only options are to
A) learn to edit latex template files (bst, cls, sty, etc...), which isn't something i would wish on anyone, or
B) give up on that particular way of styling it.

i realize that markdown doesn't solve that problem, but maybe since it's so deliberately lower fidelity, my obsession to get things to look *just* right sort of gives up. i just focus on making sure the links to shit work, the content is right, etc...

We use the open source speedata publisher lib for our documents. The templates are XML based, and you even have CSS support to create high quality pdf files. AMA.

speedata.github.io/publisher/index.html
github.com/speedata/examples

>>57365350
markdown is a plain text extension, it has no style component. The syntax is modern, very logic and - most importantly - readable.

tex is bullshit.

we can make better documents with Latex

>>57365454
i mean i think it's obvious that i disagree about latex. i think it's true that for most people latex is overkill, and the syntax is really inaccessible, but if you can get past that there are a few features of latex that make it hard to dismiss. I mean more than just the plaintext aspect of latex, which makes it amenable to generic version control and all the corollary features (like diffing), since markdown shares that.

the first feature that makes latex unique is formatting. i realize this makes the argument niche, since a growing number of people, especially working in tech, don't need to print or even typeset anything, but if you do (like for a CV/resume), latex *can* be a useful tool for dealing with the nonsense of styling to another place. i see people making ASCII resumes (maybe for street cred), and that's fine, but if you want a CV that looks/prints conventionally, then latex makes that more predictable.

the second bit is even more niche: citations. maintaining a references list is a fucking nightmare. in a paper i recently submitted i had ~170 references. we used the ACM ref format (namely, numeric), but imagine if i had to change it to something like MLA (which i think uses author/year). and numeric's not perfect; however you order numeric references, certain changes can trigger a reflow which would *dramatically* increase the workload if done manually. some alternative systems exist (mendeley), but a colleague saw mendeley go down the day of a conference deadline. the conference extended the deadline because of it, but downtime (or a sudden fee increase, or a company going out of business) shouldn't affect my ability to use my bibliography.

i totally get that there are lots of people out there who are neither doing high fidelity typesetting nor formal external references, but if you're doing either (or god forbid both), latex remains the undisputed gold standard.

Because science, bitch. We like our publications to be beautiful.

>>57360222
Its an automatic entry into the top five at a hackathon if you use LaTeX in anyway

Everyone but the top 10 tech companies get wet if you have a non-obvious LaTeX template for your resume

>>57365558
let's be clear that what "beautiful" means here is like the textbook definition of a niche cultural definition of beauty. outside of academia, Computer Modern isn't a very nice font. it's just pleasant to scientists/academics because it's this pleasing, familiar, comfy assurance you that later on when you get to any formulas they're not going to look abortive and fucked up.

and that's totally fine. i agree that it looks beautiful - to me/us. but maybe a more precise term (and as scientists shouldn't we strive for that?) is that we like latex because it's predictable. if you paste something into MS Word, myriad invisible things might influence the output in unpredictable ways, and that's both terrifying and infuriating for scientists.

it's that predictability that makes it beautiful, or comfy, or whatever positive adjective latex users associate with latex. and it's all true, but only within the context of them.

Is it even possible to automate the output in latex?

Let's say I have found 100 jobs in 100 companies, I would love to use a bash script to generate pdf's with a customized cover letter $company_name $company_address and send the shebang out using port 25 automagically

>>57365610
Are you asking is it possible to automate the creation of text?

>>57365616
yes, as far as I understand the latex template files seem to be static

>lah-techs
>Ind-desi-gun

Just use word like a non autist you fucking retards.

>>57365630
Finish your first year of CS and then ask the question again

File: triggered-22.png (228KB, 600x524px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 600x524px

>>57360387

The second dog has been STUNG BY A BEE! You prejudiced cis asshole!

>>57365630
>>57365610
i feel like i don't understand what you're asking, because it seems like an incredibly simple question.... but yes, you can automate latex compilation.

i suspect that you could do it in latex itself but i kind of feel like using a better "glue" language like bash or python to pipe in values and then compile for a 100 item loop would just be easier (for me, anyway).

the most moronic way of doing it (that is, the way i would do it because looking up the cleverer solution would take time that i don't care to spend) is to make a script spit out 100 different latex files with the relevant unique fields being the only stuff that differs among them all. then run some for loop in bash like

for eachFile in $(ls *tex)
do
  pdflatex $eachFile;
done

or whatever. i suck about as many dicks with bash as one can, but i figure a quick google iron out whatever fuckups i made with the syntax or whatever.

the post facto advantage to this is that you end up with the latex files (rather than generating them in memory and then destroying them after the script is done running, which might be a "cleaner" solution), which could be good if you wanted to inspect the files between steps.

>>57365597
Predictability in research is boring, but when you're using tools to present your data and whatnot you want predictability. So yes, you're right.

File: 1477737546447.jpg (11KB, 352x395px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 352x395px

>>57360222
It's funny how the Adobe dog is clearly not mature yet. Maybe 1-2 years old.

>>57365597

The shorthand for writing equations is really nice as well

Whenever I type $x_s$ to my professor he knows what I mean

>>57360222
1. It scales better. If you're writing a dissertation, you don't want to be manually updating page numbers and reference numbers every single time you add a citation or expand a paragraph.

2. It's the industry standard. You get taught it at university, you get shittons of resources online, and it produces higher-quality renderings than other text placement systems. Many conferences will even provide you with LaTeX templates and require you to use them for your paper. Good luck getting around it.

3. It's editable using nothing but a text editor. Autists gravitate towards keyboard-driven and command-line workflows because it meshes well with their way of processing information (command-heavy and analytic)

>>57360222
So you want me to write my thesis using proprietary botnet bloatware? No thank you.

>>57365610
>Is it even possible to automate the output in latex?
LaTeX is a regular command line program. Of course you can automate it. What kind of retarded question is that?

Microsoft Word probably uploads your research or corporate data to Microsoft and the US government. Built-in industrial espionage.
This is partly why Russia is switching to GNU plus Linux.

>>57365722
you're right that predictability in research is boring, but the proper outlet for that is to find something interesting and unexpected in the research itself.

i don't think any scientist would tell you that he wants his *tools* to behave unpredictably. rather, he wants his tools to (reliably) report that the world behaves in some unexpected or unpredicted way, giving the scientist cause to chase down an explanation or a framework or something to make sense of the world given that data.

like, to make an extreme example, i don't think a bored researcher would welcome unpredictability being injected into his life in the form of random cases of petty theft in his lab.

>>57365763
They and China are switching because of US botnet embedded in the whole of modern computing.

>>57365736
yeah exactly. i guess this is what i mean by predictability. subscript in latex is so trivial, easy to copy/paste, etc... that i feel like it's all but impossible to fuck up. subscript in MS Word, by contrast, can be a little obnoxious because Word tries to be helpful to the point of being in the way. like being a little ambiguous about whether it thinks it's still in subscript mode or not until you've started typing text, and potentially having to go fix it.

stuff like that is unambiguous in latex. if you want more terms, you can capture them all with curly brackets. you know where your cursor is. it's either in the curly brackets or not.

and stuff like that is practically everywhere in latex. and when you start to notice that, you become much more patient with latex, because lots of little things like this in Word take a second or two of your life each time they happen, and it just feels like death by a thousand cuts of things happening (seemingly) randomly, and you holding your breath every single time to see how it comes out.

File: LaTeX.jpg (35KB, 677x548px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 677x548px

>>57360222
>Why do so many autists use TeX - LaTeX?

Typeset something like pic related in a proprietary word processor, reconsider, then maybe make another thread.

According to your assessment, 99.9% of mathematicians, physicists, and computer scientists (and also approximately 70% of the rest of the science lot) are autists.

>>57364888
That font is so beautiful.

Which font is that?

So now after Linux is autism the windows babies are coming for LaTeX?

File: 1471782863244.jpg (39KB, 600x568px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x568px

>>57365911
>math

>not using groff

kys

>>57365911
that lack of alignment gave me autism

>>57360610
>(badness 10000)
oh shit, that's a lot of badness

File: 1430342935303.jpg (266KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 512x512px

>>57363295
>I knew plenty of people with tech anxiety who would use MSFT with computer modern so that people thought they knew latex.
the shit linebreaks reveal them as the frauds they are, though

>>57360535
>>57360610
The real problem with LaTeX is that trying to exit out of the goddamn program after an error is an exercise in futility. After trying ^C and ^D a few times I usually just `pkill` it.

The TeX binary desperately needs an update to 2016, with colorful error messages and a command-driven workflow that doesn't constantly try to drop you into an interactive console which ignores all escape codes.

>>57366021
this. tex in cli sucks.

>>57360838
Best at what it dows to my knowledge, yes.
For an editor check out Texstudio. Best editor I've found so far and has what I need and want (autocomplete, configurable shortcuts etc.)

>>57366021
That's why I hit ^D first and it works.

So what's a good CLI package manager for LaTeX? Because fuck installing the entire texlive-full package, I don't need that bloat.

>>57366066
Just use the one that comes with texlive. There are more options to install texlive than the full installation.

>>57364128
for the masses there is already a wysiwyg editor for text and such: its called a wordprocessor, Word and Writer are good examples.

>>57364670
frogposter is retarded, no suprise here.

Y'all should check out overleaf.com it's like Google docs for latex, you can both edit the same document simultaneously, and it compiles it for you in your browser :)

>>57365983
It's really jarring, anon should look up the & operator

>>57364204

That's not remotely true. groff can define variables. It has if statements and loops. It is not only turing complete, but trivially so.

Layout is simply the defaults of the program. There is nothing LaTeX does that couldn't be done in groff. I fail to see any reason to prefer LaTeX's defaults since any significant publication will likely require changing multiple settings anyway, and LaTeX use is more irritating for me.

>>57364128
http://www.lyx.org/

>type document in plaintext
>typesetting system handles everything for you
Why wouldn't you use latex?

>>57363349
I used Word for ease of moving shit around. got it to look the way I wanted, then built the html/css to match.

>>57363748

>not using \LaTeX

>>57360222
I hate latex so much. It is so uncomfy to use. Completely ruined tex.
troff is much nicer to use

>>57368125
Also groff is just as bad.
Thank heavens for plan9 port

how do I into latexmk?
I thought if I was running it with -pvc it should automagically recompile every time source file changes
instead I have to fucking ctrl+C and run that shit again

send help

>>57360489
The logical progression of HTML programmers

>>57365983
>>57366309
Finally, true autism rears its ugly head in this thread.

>>57365911
>implying they aren't
Complex analysis is what, a sophomore course? Junior at latest? Do you think it doesn't qualify as autistic as fuck?

>>57364888
poo in loo

>>57368508
That's a screenshot from Mochizuki's Interuniversal Teichmüller Theory. Yes, I chose it because it's a meme.

And no, it's not the case that 99.9% of mathematicians &c. are autistic.

File: 1474596231441.png (312KB, 389x386px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 389x386px

>>57368508
>Algebra is Complex analysis

>>57361017
This, I use Unity and KDE is comfy. Nice editing features, shows a table of special symbols, and easy compilation buttons.

File: rstevens.png (35KB, 1261x152px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1261x152px

It's only used by mathematicians.

>>57369020
>"I type faster than I can move a mouse"
>type 200 characters to do one thing or mouse to a menu and click to do the same thing

>>57360222
>writing something larger than 100 pages
>need to switch to my watercooled supercomputer
no thanks fa[math] [/math]m