It's kinda fascinating how dominant LaTeX is, how nice its output is, how respected Knuth is as a computer scientist, and at the same time how totally awful it feels to use it. Hard to figure out how it can be so good and so bad at once.
Posts/discussion I found interesting:
- http://www.goodmath.org/blog/2008/01/10/the-genius-of-donald...
- https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/24671
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15733381
In particular it's interesting how people seem to think TeX itself is actually quite nice to use but its popularity and LaTeX packages created a huge mess of a system.
Well -- TeX is "80s good". We've gotten better at designing ergonomic software since and it really doesn't meet the modern standard. But it's good enough for most people, and sufficiently hard to replace, that it has stuck around.
Added to that, academics specifically are more willing to suffer old crufty stuff than software engineers tend to be. After all their job is to absorb fields of material whether good or bad, and the technology tends to be lagging behind the bleeding edge in many subfields anyway so TeX doesn't even necessarily stand out.
> TeX is "80s good"
Bingo. Compared to troff and what preceded, TeX was amazing just in its usage. But its real value was in the quality of its typesetting. Knuth put a lot of effort into the beauty and historical correctness of the output, so much so that it was solving optimization problems to calculate line breaks. MS Word still can't break a line properly in 2026.
If TeX is “80s good”, Typst might be “90s” good, being generous.
Celebrating batch-mode typesetting in 2026 feels like some weird cyberpunk fixation.
Programmable like Emacs (but via Scheme), interfaced with major Computer Algebra Systems, tree-structured documents that are live-queryable and modifiable, and typesetting that rivals TeX without using TeX - TeXmacs provides all that, and much more (https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html)
erg. You're not wrong but TexMacs looks like more 80s software that no one wants to use anymore because the user experience is awful.
There was a point in the 1990's where microsoft word wasn't truly WYSIWYG. IIRC it was like an infinite page and the line breaks and page breaks were "estimates"
Further many docs from that era are plagued with abandonware.
TeX did one thing well for an era when often the only interface to the machine was over a Xyplex terminal server connecting to a tty at 9600 baud.
part of the challenge is the inherent irreducible complexity of the domain. "Make text look good on page" leaves lots of details unspecified.
another part is many people built their own solution to their own corner of this domain, and not all of them had the deep appreciation for how the rest of the TeX system works.
I hear similar complaints about "Make web page look good", which is popular but also a huge mess of a system.
Because Knuth wrote TeX, not LaTeX. All the parent comment's grievances are about LaTeX features, not TeX.
to be fair to knuth, he had nothing to do with latex. it's conceivable that one could start over from plain tex and build up a different high level system. (then again perhaps some of the brittleness of latex comes from unavoidable issues with the tex layer; lamport is a very respected computer scientist too!)
It’s my understanding that Knuth has little to nothing to do with latex and he himself uses tex for his books.
The dichotomy comes from conflating the TeX syntax with tex macro system, both use backslash.
The backslash based syntax allows for some really powerful typesetting which is far above anything that exists today. At the same time, the use of backslash-based langauge right to the bottom in terms of macros is what is causing the frustration.
Typst kind of solves that by having backslash based syntax implemented in Rust.
You're linking to posts from 15 and from 18 years ago. And the post from 2011 is about how Donald Knuth wrote TeX (not LaTeX) in the early 1980s. While TeX and LaTeX have fundamental design flaws, it is much less awful to use them these days, with a rich selection of rather robust packages available, that vastly reduce the need to go into hard-core LaTeX programming yourself.
I won't lie: It takes getting used to and you need to learn a lot if you want to achieve fancy complex typesetting effects. But - it's not half as inconvenient as it once was.
[dead]