Re: [TeXmacs] ANNOUNCE: texmacs-fedit plug-in
Sam Liddicott <sam <at> liddicott.com>
2010-10-14 11:24:50 GMT
I think we understand each-other well.
You raise the same concerns I have with literate programming generally,
meaningful representation of code blocks that can still be handled by
compilers, and finally how our different efforts address the problems.
I will admit that I have just taken Ramsey's noweb work and made it work
better ( think), and now porting to texmacs (whose macros - lovely
edit-time macros) make it so much better than lyx.
I think we just carry on and watch each-other and talk from time to time.
On 14/10/10 12:19, sylvain wrote:
> Your project is great. I apologise for not having discovered it before.
> One of the fun of computing is that people can find very technically
> different solutions to the same problem. This is yet another example.
> We both wanted to be able to do the same: write program code in
> You seem to be very knowledgeable about literate programming à la
> Knuth. I am more used to Integrated Development Environment like
> Eclipse, that I love because of the productivity it allows.
> So, you asked yourself the question: how can I put markups in a Texmacs
> document so that my external program can extract it? User inserts code
> fragment in an arbitrary order and runs "make", which calls an external
> tool, that extracts the code, make compiles it. And your project does
> exactly that.
> I asked rather the question: how can I get Texmacs to extract the code,
> compile it and insert the result so that I can have fast round-trip?
> texmacs-fedit leverages the plug-in infrastructure to do exactly that.
> The project is structured so that one can add a specialized plug-in for
> a dedicated language. It is possible to parse the output of the compiler
> to, for example, highlight the location of an error.
> Another problem I wanted to try to solve is to explore the possibility
> to convert Texmacs advanced typesetting into one-lined ASCII concrete
> syntax understood by a compiler. I believe the one-dimensional one-line
> input from the good old 70's is holding us back. Not when you program in
> traditional languages, but when you want to program in modern languages
> like ATS, whose text source, when forced to be one-dimensional, become
> rapidly unreadable. Other languages I can think of that would benefit of
> that are Agda and Haskell.
> (The trouble is, I am stuck with a bug in my version of Texmacs
> (184.108.40.206, Ubuntu) and didn't made much progress on this front.)
> I personally hate duplication of effort. If it was clear-cut that your
> project has the best approach to reach these goals, I would drop fedit
> down right-away. But I am not convinced of that. Rather I think that
> both answer to different use-cases and are valuable. In that sense we
> didn't wasted our time, neither you nor me.
> Ideally, we would merge both projects, but I don't see for now how it
> could be done, since they have taken radically different technical ways.
> If you have an idea, let me know.
[FSF Associate Member #2325]