mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Sam Liddicott <address@concealed>]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 at 03:10, Christopher Dimech <address@concealed> wrote:

> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 11:17 AM
> From: "Jay Belanger" <address@concealed>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <address@concealed>
> Cc: address@concealed
> Subject: Re: [texmacs-users] The Jolly Writer
>
>
> >There is always some chestnut who likes to to point to Firefox.
>
> Because it's misleading even more than TeXmacs, which
> actually is not misleading at all.
>
> > Firefox’s name is metaphorical.
>
> So it's one of your "misleading names" that you'll make
> excuses for.  (Neither name is misleading, but apparently
> some people really don't like TeXmacs.)

It does not have as much attention as you think it does.
Although one good thing is that it install better than
TexLive.  The development of TexLive is screwed up something
awful.  Still, to reach wide use it must integrate well
with reading and producing usable latex and tex compatible
code.  Last time I played with it, was not good.

You cannot humanly read texmacs code of a document or
modify without the editor.  What would be useful is
visual representation of structure.

> > With Texmacs, the name suggests a direct lineage or
> > compatibility that just isn't there.
>
> No, it really doesn't.
> (I'll ignore your replies of "Misleading!  Metaphorical!
> Allegorical!  Transcendental!)

Joris ought to release that book under a free license.
Enough with the bull.

You have the free editor.

The Jolly Writer is not the manual. You have the free manual online. 

"Gimme more free stuff"

!? I somehow don't feel motivated enough even to find the link to the online manual for you.

Sam