The worst aspects of [La]TeX are literally its claims to fame: global (rather than local) layout optimization, and Turing-complete macro language.
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker
I would think the claims to fame here are: widely adopted, and still better typographical rendering than most of its concurrence. Also, macros are what enabled the numerous packages, how is this bad?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @das_kube
Don't get me wrong, there is no competition. But "I fixed a typo on page 300 and now the break between pages 1 & 2 changed" is nothing but an anti-feature.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
It need not be, and shouldn't be. Design should minimize P(later repagination) and zero out P(earlier repagination) under small local changes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @das_kube
but why? what do you gain? I understand why things are done the current way: I would hate reading a book full of empty space or uneven spacing used as buffer for pagination
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You don't need any noticeable buffers to do that. What you gain is reasonable edit process. A 2nd edition with minor corrections should be easy to compare side-by-side, follow old references.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.