Are TeXmacs macros as easy to write as TeX/LaTeX ones?

And if not, why not?

And in particular, can TeXmacs just as easily handle graycat’s use cases as TeX?

I have answered on Hacker News.

Different people have different opinions. I don’t understand their usage, and in particular, I don’t think that TeX, as a macro programming language (the way they appreciate), is user friendly. It seems difficult to debug, and the syntax is way too flexible.

The macro system of TeXmacs, based on the scheme programming language, is much better than that IMHO.

However, TeXmacs is not written for that, and most people don’t use either TeX or LaTeX as a platform to do macro programming. People simply use it to type articles and books.


The trick is to combine macros with ease of input. Then it works, IMO

Though macros and packages can be implemented in scheme, are scheme really the first choice to make custom elements? Apart from Turing-complete language of document, C++ can also be used to implement new macro as primitive.

Which way is preferred for you to implement new macro?

  • scm: Scheme code invoked by extern macro
  • cpp: Primitive
  • ts: TeXMacs script or programmable document

0 voters