First login?
Lost password?
 
 
 
mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

Text archives Help


Re: [TeXmacs] New mode for graphics


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Henri Lesourd <address@hidden>
  • To: Magnus Rohde <address@hidden>
  • Cc: address@hidden
  • Subject: Re: [TeXmacs] New mode for graphics
  • Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:10:59 +0200


In general, I think that the really important thing is to succeed in finding your own way, not to compare yourself with others ; but as far as Xfig is concerned, of course I --must-- disagree with you : it is in fact quite realistic to say that **today**, we are already successfully competing on their very turf ! ;-)


If by "successfully competing" you mean failing miserably, then I agree with you ;-). The graphics mode, as it is now, does not even come close to any drawing program I have used since 1993.
When I mentioned Xfig and Illustrator it was just as examples for a type of program usually referred to as drawing programs and not a reference to these specific programs. And I really don't think that the graphics mode in TeXmacs will ever become a serious choice when it comes to drawing anything more than a few lines or very simple sketches (a bit like the drawing thingy in M$ Word).
I would be glad if you could prove me wrong, of course. :-)

Your criticism is in fact very harsh ; this is not forbidden : but then, in order to be meaningful, you should be able to point to precise points ; just saying "doesn't come close to any drawing program" without giving details of what you really mean is useless : I cannot use such a very vague information to improve the software.

So as far as Xfig is concerned, I would say that, to use your own words, we come quite close to it : the current version of the graphics mode of TeXmacs contains most of the features that can be found in Xfig, and it is implemented in a much more user-friendly way. Some points :

a) Xfig is not fully wysiwyg : when moving a point of a curve, you only see the polyline of the control points ; in TeXmacs, you see the real curve actually moving ;

b) the interface of Xfig is rather unintuitive : there is a mode for creating a new curve, another mode for moving the points of a curve, a third mode to add a new point to the curve, and a fourth mode to delete one point on the curve ! In TeXmacs, the interface is much better : use the right button to create a new curve and add new points, drag and drop a point to move it, drag and drop an edge to insert a new point, and click the middle button to remove a point. It should be noted that in TeXmacs, when you move the cursor, you instantaneously can see the active object under cursor : in Xfig, you see nothing. Etc. ;

c) Most of the features available in Xfig are also available **right now** in the texmacs graphical editor, especially features for embedding LaTeX-like quality texts into a graphics. Xfig can do it very well, but again, it is not very convenient : in TeXmacs, you can just cut & paste an equation from the text inside one of your graphical boxes ;

Given these facts, I think I clearly showed why, in my opinion, it is **today** that we can say that the graphics mode in TeXmacs comes close to Xfig (I discuss specifically Xfig here : of course, I do not claim that we come close to any drawing program). So my question is : why do you think that the current version of the graphics in TeXmacs would fail miserably, if one compares it to Xfig ? (be specific, please).

You are correct for the very small minority of people for which software freedom matters. For the rest it is a matter of value for money, and when it comes to Illustrator/Corel Draw/FreeHand they offer real value for money, when compared to the graphics mode in TeXmacs as it is now.

Money is not relevant for defining what value is. Rather, value is defined in the first place, and money is then used as a tool that allows people to invest in this or that particular value.

In other words : the fact that some software is free and some other software is not free is irrelevant : it doesn't free us from the task of explicitly saying what we want. Saying "this software, being driven this way or that way, offers real value" is not even an argument : it is politics.

On the other hand, by stating that the feature A is missing, or that the feature B should, in your opinion, be modified this way (the said way being described in sufficient detail), you do something useful, because you bring explicit, clear and logical arguments that people can understand, reuse, and improve. If nobody ever does this, no wonder that the development of TeXmacs is driven by the developers, because without such a task of turning problems into explicit (possible) solutions, no software development is possible !

I know that Joris does put many hours into the project, and my comment wasn't on his or any other's work. What I was trying to say was that I don't think that the direction of development should be guided by the interests of the available workforce.

It is not a matter of available workforce : it is a matter of writing specifications. If you want that your ideas become implemented, you must first describe them in sufficient detail, otherwise it is **impossible** to take any ideas into account, because unfortunatly, the current "available workforce" has no telepathic abilities yet.

Best, Henri


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of page