Re: The Jolly Writer

> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 11:17 AM
> From: "Jay Belanger" <[email protected]>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [texmacs-users] The Jolly Writer
>
> 
> >There is always some chestnut who likes to to point to Firefox.
> 
> Because it's misleading even more than TeXmacs, which
> actually is not misleading at all.
> 
> > Firefox’s name is metaphorical.
> 
> So it's one of your "misleading names" that you'll make
> excuses for.  (Neither name is misleading, but apparently
> some people really don't like TeXmacs.)

It does not have as much attention as you think it does.
Although one good thing is that it install better than
TexLive.  The development of TexLive is screwed up something
awful.  Still, to reach wide use it must integrate well
with reading and producing usable latex and tex compatible 
code.  Last time I played with it, was not good.

You cannot humanly read texmacs code of a document or 
modify without the editor.  What would be useful is 
visual representation of structure. 

> > With Texmacs, the name suggests a direct lineage or
> > compatibility that just isn't there.
> 
> No, it really doesn't.
> (I'll ignore your replies of "Misleading!  Metaphorical!
> Allegorical!  Transcendental!)

Joris ought to release that book under a free license.
Enough with the bull.