I wonder what's the status of LaTeX 3[1][2]. Also, it would be nice to have an automation in the style of Tectonic[3][4] (which looks like a dead project itself) out of the box.

[1] https://www.latex-project.org/latex3/

[2] https://github.com/latex3/latex3

[3] http://tectonic-typesetting.github.io/

[4] https://github.com/tectonic-typesetting/tectonic/

▲

gucci-on-fleek 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I wonder what's the status of LaTeX 3

It's either already here or never happening, depending on your perspective [0] [1].

> it would be nice to have an automation in the style of Tectonic

What do you mean by "automation"?

[0]: https://www.texdev.net/2024/11/11/the-mythical-latex3

[1]: https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb44-1/tb136mitt-history.pdf#page=5

▲

maxnoe 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ever tried latexmk for the automation?

▲

alxhslm 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Seems like an admirable project but they’re building on creaky foundations. Even the way TexLive is released feels like something from academia than a real piece of software.

▲

gucci-on-fleek 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I work on the packaging in TeX Live, and I'll freely admit that it's arcane and convoluted (from a packager's perspective), but it's super reliable, and the end-users are mostly insulated from all the inner workings. It can indeed be tricky to debug if something breaks, but this is thankfully quite rare.

▲

noosphr 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, unlike real software it has backward compatibility to the 80s.

▲

mr_mitm 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Things break all the damn time with LaTeX. Example: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/730126/update-to-cle...

Sometimes bugs appear only if you load three specific packages in a specific order. The fact that there are no namespaces and every package can modify everything makes it a complete nightmare. LaTeX would do well to take a hint from the lessons we learned in the past 40 years. Or just retire it and push something sane forward, like Typst.

▲

noosphr 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Latex is not Tex.

▲

mr_mitm 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Neither is texlive. Texlive and LaTeX is what this thread and the comment you replied to are about.

▲

noosphr 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Typst is a replacement for TeX.

Not LaTeX.

You'd of course need to read the documentation on what TeX and LaTeX are to understand this. Most people would rather write a new system.

▲

mr_mitm 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't know why you think the condescending tone is appropriate. I've been using LaTeX for twenty years and I believe I understand the difference. I also respectfully disagree on your assessment of Typst.

▲

noosphr 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Have you written documents in raw TeX?

	▲	leephillips 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’ve written book-length documents in Plain TeX (probably what you mean — nobody writes in “raw” tex) and in LaTeX. I would say that Typst, if it’s a replacement for anything, is a replacement for LuaLaTeX, because of its programmability. But in this article I framed it as a possible LaTeX replacement: https://lwn.net/Articles/1037577/