[texworks] Analyzing the log

Reinhard Kotucha reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Thu Jun 4 00:10:15 CEST 2009

On 2 June 2009 Herbert Schulz wrote:
 > On Jun 2, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
 >>> [...]

 >> Hmm, in principle it's a good idea to extend a particular program
 >> by external code instead of providing all the functionality in
 >> C/C++.  You can provide extensions and fix bugs without the need
 >> to re-compile the binary.  This saves a lot of time, especially
 >> because TeXworks is supposed to work on many different platforms.
 >> However, instead of calling arbitrary external programs, I think
 >> it's much better to integrate a Lua engine into TeXworks.  Then
 >> almost everything can be done without re-compiling the binaries.
 >> The best example of such an approach is Emacs.  Most of its
 >> functionality comes from files written in Lisp.  It's really
 >> worthwhile to study Emacs.
 >> There is certainly no benefit to hard-code a log-analyzer in the
 >> binary.  It can better be done by external code.  But calling a
 >> Perl script would only solve *one* problem.  A built-in Lua engine
 >> could make TeXworks as extensible as Emacs.
 >> Besides all the other advantages Lua offers, the reason I prefer
 >> Lua is that it's extremely powerful but its clear concepts make it
 >> easy to learn.
 > Howdy,
 > Hmmm... and I thought that TeXWorks was supposed to be a simple to  
 > learn and use UTF-8 compliant TeX aware editor/front end. 

yes, of course!

 > I certainly don't think of it as a competitor to Emacs.  If you
 > want emacs use emacs; it's very powerful, especially with AUCTeX
 > and other extensions, but I don't want to spend the next few years
 > of my life learning it and its multi-key commands.

I used Emacs as an example.  There are many other programs which
provide most of their functionality by external code.  The most
obvious one is TeX, but I mentioned Emacs because it's an editor.

I don't think that any user should be bothered with Lua programming.
Similarly, I don't think that any LaTeX user should be bothered with
TeX programming.  But there is one difference: While a LaTeX user
knows that he is using LaTeX (he might not know that he's actually
using TeX (with a macro package), or he probably might assume that
WinEDT does the typesetting), a TeXworks user wouldn't even know that
parts of TeXworks are written in Lua.

I already described in my previous mail (see above) why I think a
scripting language is useful (see the first two paragraphs of my
mail).  I never had the intention to expose such internals to users.

BTW, your statement

 > [...] but I don't want to spend the next few years of my life
 > learning it and its multi-key commands.

has nothing to do with my proposal.  It's also quite misleading.  If
you are are using Emacs' pull-down menus only, you can do everything
you can do with any other text editor, and even *much* more.  The
keyboard shortcuts make life easier, but you are not forced to use
them if you don't want.

But please let's avoid a useless discussion about Emacs here.  I only
mentioned it because it's a good example for a program written in C
which interacts with a scripting language, and because it's an editor.


Reinhard Kotucha			              Phone: +49-511-3373112
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover	                      mailto:reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.

More information about the texworks mailing list