|
About:
GNU TeXmacs is a free wysiwyw (what you see is what you want) editing platform with special features for scientists. The software aims to provide a unified and user friendly framework for editing structured documents with different types of content: text, mathematics, graphics, interactive content. TeXmacs can also be used as an interface to many external systems for computer algebra, numerical analysis, and statistics. New presentation styles can be written by the user and new features can be added to the editor using Scheme.
Author:
Joris van der Hoeven [contact developer]
Homepage:
http://www.texmacs.org/
Tar/GZ:
http://www.texmacs.org/Download/Install.html
Changelog:
http://www.texmacs.org/Web/Changes.html
RPM package:
http://www.texmacs.org/Download/RPM.html
Debian package:
http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/download/debian.en.html
OS X package:
http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/texmacs
BSD Ports URL:
http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/download/bsd.en.html
CVS tree (cvsweb):
http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/download/cvs.en.html
Mailing list archive:
http://lists.texmacs.org/wws/arc/texmacs-users
Mirror site:
http://www.gnu.org/software/texmacs/
Trove categories:
[change]
| [Development Status] | | 5 - Production/Stable | | [Environment] | | X11 Applications | | [Intended Audience] | | End Users/Desktop | | [License] | | OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License (GPL) | | [Operating System] | | MacOS X, Microsoft :: Windows, Microsoft :: Windows :: Cygwin, Microsoft :: Windows :: Windows NT/2000/XP, POSIX :: BSD, POSIX :: Linux, POSIX :: SunOS/Solaris | | [Programming Language] | | C++, Scheme | | [Topic] | | Internet :: WWW/HTTP :: Browsers, Office/Business :: Office Suites, Scientific/Engineering, Scientific/Engineering :: Mathematics, Scientific/Engineering :: Visualization, Software Development :: Documentation, Terminals, Text Editors, Text Editors :: Documentation, Text Editors :: Emacs, Text Editors :: Word Processors, Text Processing, Text Processing :: Fonts, Text Processing :: Markup, Text Processing :: Markup :: HTML/XHTML, Text Processing :: Markup :: TeX/LaTeX |
Dependencies:
[change]
No dependencies filed
|
|
» Rating:
8.49/10.00
(Rank 289)
» Vitality: 2.27% (Rank 271)
» Popularity: 11.90% (Rank 155)
 
(click to enlarge graphs)
Record hits: 128,073
URL hits: 106,884
Subscribers: 228
|
|
Branches
Comments
[»]
Congrats to GNU TeXmacs
by RSBohn - Dec 7th 2004 15:21:12
Congratulations to GNU TeXmacs, top project in the first edition of the Freshmeat.net
Vitality Countdown.
RSBohn
--
RSBohn http://fundamental.antville.org
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Port to (gasp) Windows?
by gp - Jun 21st 2004 17:58:51
I love the plug-in capability to use TeXmacs with Cycas and other CAS
utilities, as this fills neatly the void of a GPL Math program that can be
used for both computation and presentation (a huge time waster). However,
as has yet to be destablished, MS is the mainstay, and a windows port would
be FANTASTIC! Any plans to do that?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Name is misleading
by submissions - May 8th 2003 05:34:03
Great program! I've been looking for such a text editor ever since I got a
computer. It's really a pleasure writing stuff in Texmacs, and it makes
huge programs like Word obsolete IMHO.
I think the name is a bit misleading though. It has nothing to do with
emacs. Being a vi user myself, I was at first scared to download and try
texmacs. :)
How about TeXditor or TeXuthor?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Nice job!
by Tom Fawcett - Oct 6th 2002 10:47:39
I'm a long time user of tex and latex. I'm impressed with what they've
managed to do with TeXmacs. Keep up the good work!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Just my 2 cents
by Twinkle - Oct 10th 2001 09:46:47
TeXmacs exists, if nothing else, in it's own right.
I've used Tex for a long time, and occasionally
MS Word, StarOffice, etc., and TeXmacs is a fine
project on typesetting.
Please keep up the good work.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Not much point in there
by jofi - Sep 4th 2001 03:46:38
TeX's high quality isn't made up only by TeX's fonts, but by flexible
character and line distances, which have to be recalculated in a complex
algorithm after each text change.
The purpose of TeX is to achieve high quality in the output, not in the
editing window, which is neither achievable nor sensible.
In order to create TeX-files you should have an advanced text editor, of
course. This solves the editing problems that are probably the reason
behind this project.
So, I'm afraid, but there isn't much point for `TeX'macs in my opinion.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Not much point in there
by Joris van der Hoeven - Sep 7th 2001 17:26:33
> TeX's high quality isn't made up only by TeX's fonts, but by
flexible character and
> line distances, which have to be recalculated in a complex algorithm
after each text change.
Maybe the abstract has mislead you, but these flexible character and line
distances are also supported by TeXmacs. As a matter of fact, most complex
TeX algorithms (hyphenation, line-breaking, etc.) are the same or similar
in TeXmacs and in TeX. From several points of view, there are even
improvements in typesetting quality.
> The purpose of TeX is to achieve high quality in the output,
> not in the editing window, which is neither achievable nor sensible.
Why would this not be achievable or sensible? I think/hope that TeXmacs
proves the contrary. See also http://www.texmacs.org/Data/TeXmacs.pdf
for some explanations on this issue.
> So, I'm afraid, but there isn't much point for `TeX'macs in my
opinion.
I hope that you first gave TeXmacs a serious try before writing your
comment.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Not much point in there
by jofi - Sep 8th 2001 05:31:01
>
> which have to be recalculated in a complex
> algorithm after each text change.
>
Okay, okay. I've overlooked that you do exactly this. Wow, computers have
become
really fast, haven't they. So I'm wrong with `not achievable' and should
have written better
`hard to achieve'.
Anway, still I can't see the benefit of this effort. When creating a LaTeX
file, there is one
window, where to edit the source text, and a second to see what you get.
What is the benefit of getting this in one window?
Is it easy editing? I doubt this. With a programmable text editor creating
LaTeX files is as easy as writing a Word document. (Interestingly you are
using scheme somewhere.)
In my view, wysiwyg is useful when creating newspaper pages or the like,
moving quickly parts of the text and/or pictures around, seeing how it
looks like and deciding if it is attractive.
But playing around with layout is not the purpose of LaTeX. In sharp
contrast, LaTeX's philosphy is to keep the provided professional layout and
to think only about what you are writing, i.e. organise it, structurize it
-- but never worry about layout. (Though there are many people around that
do not appreciate this.)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Not much point in there
by Joris van der Hoeven - Oct 3rd 2001 21:21:39
This is starting to get repetitive. Please
(1) give the program a real try;
(2) look at the pointer I gave in my previous answer.
If, after that, you are still not convinced, then we may at least have a
serious discussion.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Not much point in there
by wenye - Jun 1st 2002 18:02:32
I think TeXmacs has its points. I find TeXmacs is a good choice for my
editor for its combination of both the idea of TeX and wysiwyg. Actually,
without TeXmacs, I'm considering to write one for myself. There is no
omnipotent editor that can satisfy everybody. But TeXmacs is a valuable
project.
There are still some problems in it, like the page partition algorithm. I
hope it will be better and better.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Not much point in there
by Free software lover - Sep 21st 2001 15:26:10
I have been using TeXmacs for about a year or so now. At last scientists
like me have a free and simple to use tool for writing beautiful texts. I
also have many years of experience with TeX, AMS-TeX, Blah-TeX, and so on
:o(. If the TeXmacs program continues to improve as it does, then there
will soon be no point any more in using the old fashioned TeX stuff (in my
opinion).
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Not much point in there
by yohan555 - Oct 4th 2001 13:37:09
As somebody who publishes quite frequently in
scientific journals it seems to me that the primary
problem is compatibility and acceptance.
Most publishers these days require either a word or
wordperfect file to be send in with the draft. Some
publishers do in fact accept LaTeX, but there are
fewer and fewer of them. Remember, they need a
version they can typeset (these days they are
actually using Framemaker, just got an article back
for proof reading from the American Chemical
Society that was formatted using
Framemaker)
While I really like both the concept and the program,
it'll be tough to convince publishers to accept the
electronic form produced with TeXmacs.
Yohan.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Scientific journals
by Joris van der Hoeven - Oct 4th 2001 21:00:13
Yes, I agree with what you say ... but ... how to turn a program into a
standard? If, as a user, you think that TeXmacs is sufficiently nice for
writing papers for journals, then please help: put a notice in your paper
to say that it was prepared using TeXmacs and just try to submit the paper
in TeXmacs format. After all, where are the editors good for if they can't
convert incoming papers to their preferred formats?
[reply]
[top]
|
