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

Text archives Help


Re: [TeXmacs] TeXmacs name


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Gubinelli Massimiliano <address@hidden>
  • To: address@hidden
  • Subject: Re: [TeXmacs] TeXmacs name
  • Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:19:16 +0100
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=nO7loq5Nf9NGuNSmn3P8JPTzGuypJUPN0R21wENa7d83kcOebgDmn+PfL0Bar3t9OC jhw47aaK9iyUj5HarIbZxPDXeyowG2wwvpnDXM1cBjnnPozGln2uIIMyCmLFWFmpSf/X VY23qfyawmE5H9mcLnb1JrQSnXDEfIdi2deBg=
Hi all,

we've discussed the issue with the name at few times in the past, both in person and on the web (cfr. the link given by Alvaro in this thread). I agree that TeXmacs does not sound bad at all, especially for a regular TeXmacs user... But nonetheless there is some impression (maybe misled) that the prefix TeX- in the name convey the utterly wrong idea that TeXmacs is an interface to TeX like many others avaliables (Lyx, Kile, TeXshop, TeXworks, TeXnicCenter, etc...) For that point of view, TeXmacs is both weird (due to its old- fashioned interface -- sorry Joris) and bad, since when the lambda user discover that there is not full LaTeX support is just horrified. So in my opinion the name attracts only the wrong class of users (those who are looking for a TeX frontend) and the reality of the software repel them since it is not what they where looking for. My personal experience is that it took me many occasional visits to the TeXmacs web page to finally understand the real quality of the program and the big difference between this kind of programs and the others I've mentioned. I think between the first time I get to knew TeXmacs and the moment I get involved in developing passed 3/5 years.

So I hope you understand my wish to get rid of the TeX prefix (which does not mean that I do not like TeX). Another problem is that TeXmacs output looks too much like TeX's that even if I tell people that TeXmacs does not use TeX they will not believe me.... But I will not propose to get rid of CM fonts altogheter (at least not now...).

Name does not have to convey meaning. Lyx for example is a very good name without any direct link to the software. There is also not real need to change the name (especially if no good alternative could be found). But we need to rethink the "marketing" strategy. Not to make money, but to ensure a future to this open source software by allowing a larger user community. This would mean: better documentation, more tutorials, more development (hopefully). These are my concerns wrt this software.

best,

Massimiliano



On 11 déc. 09, at 13:51, Peter Rapčan wrote:

Hi Alvaro (and the list),

I am sorry but I have a slightly different view of the name matter.

The only thing that ever "confused" me was the description of the texmacs package in fink: "TeX-based WYSIWYG editor" - which is obviously misleading. As far as connotations of the name itself go, texmacs probably evokes something useful for writing technical stuff (which is a correct connotation) maybe by doing the phonetical association tech<->tex, and the macs part could, in the similar way, macs->max, mean something that enables you to do the maximum in this field. At least these are the connotations I have got when first seeing the name. I am much more prone to think that the "macs" part would like to say something about the program being made for mac users, than to have anything with Emacs ;-).

Your point of view (and that of many others as I see on the list) is that a common user knows what tex, or emacs is. I guarantee you, that a common user has never used these programs nor heard of them and thus there is no way to be afraid of texmacs being confused with them.

If you really want to change the name (which is unnecessary, in my opinion) and make it absolutely tex and emacs independent, just name it TechMax (or just stop using the tex part "typeset" as if it were the real TeX.


Cheers,

Peter


On Dec 11, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote:

Dear Madhusudan,

I am afraid you're wrong.

I think that TeXmacs is almost the perfect name for the program.

Yes if the target is to confuse everybody.



It has TeX
support,

Wrong. It exports (not 1:1) to LaTeX, runs BibTeX for the bibliography
and can use TeX fonts. Employing TeX in the name triggers the wrong
expectations - you seem yourself not to have understood what the
program does alone from the name... Once more: TeXmacs has its own
typesetter. It does not run TeX for positioning boxes.

and is almost as versatile as Emacs.

for many people (especially the target group of TeXmacs) the
association upon hearing "Emacs" is to a horribly complicated program,
that requires learning arcane keybindings even for the most basic
operations, that uses a weird terminology and that sports a cryptic
and nonstandard interface.

N.B. I am a happy user of Emacs myself, I am here just portraying a
very common reaction independently of whether it does justice to
Emacs.

If you'd like to underline the programmable aspect of the editor, I
don't think this is of interest to users that don't know yet the
program. A really important property of TeXmacs however is that it
treats the document as an structured tree which can be modified live.

I would have perhaps preferred
something like SciTeXWriter (or SciTeXmaster, given that it is more than
just a writer), but TeXmacs does nicely.

No mumble-jumble of amputated words can do justice to a reasonably
featureful piece of software. Following that rule one could call Paris
SeinEiffCoeursées.

Your other proposed name is obscure sounding, and if anything,

_Your_ name sounds obscure to me. I hope you understand that this is a
relative perception and that you cannot fully satisfy a global
audience. You just need something unique enough and to dispense with
the need for denotation (you can still use connotation). Quipu would
become familiar as well as any other name; surely we will receive
other good suggestions.

does not
convey anything about the functionality of the program to the potential
userbase.

The current one gets the wrong message across.

Name changes are usually fraught with confusion, and unless there
is a really massive upside, best not done.

The upcoming release of a QT-based version is exactly the opportunity.
TeXmacs is massively undermarketed in regard to what is capable of
doing.

Best regards,

Álvaro.

With regards.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Gubinelli Massimiliano
<address@hidden> wrote:

(almost crossposting from address@hidden)
Dear all,
I would like to revive once more the debate on the name for the
TeXmacs program. There are many reasons for believing that the current
name does not serve very well the popularity of the program. I've just
come across to another possibility (among many other already proposed
and lost somewhere in the internet):
* Quipu (or kipu, or khipu) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu).
Apparently this is the ancient way Incas had to keep various kind
of informations and seems to mean "knot" so there is some link with
mathematics and with structured information. The images of Quipus make
me think to trees (of TeXmacs tags).

Here en excerpt of the wikipedia page (nice and worth reading)

"
Most of the information recorded on the quipus consists of numbers in
a decimal system;[1] see The encoding system below.
Some of the knots, as well as other features such as color, are
thought to represent non-numeric information, which has not been
deciphered. It is generally thought that the system did not include
phonetic symbols analogous to letters of the alphabet. However Gary
Urton has suggested that the quipus used a binary system which could
record phonological or logographicdata.
"

Another possible name :
* Tiamat (Tiamat is another mathematical authoring tool)
which has the benefit to allow to conserve the extension .tm
Best,
Massimiliano
ps: thanks to Martin for correcting my previous post on texmacs- dev.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of page