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

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 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Latex is not Tex.

▲

mr_mitm 14 hours ago | parent [-]

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

▲

noosphr 14 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 14 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 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Have you written documents in raw TeX?

	▲	leephillips 9 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/