In addition to making it possible to write easily, TeXmacs is also based on a markup language. It demonstrates that a markup language and WYSIWYG writing can coexist efficiently.

> Only Adobe InDesign provides a comparable implementation, tweaking all those details.

TeXmacs claims to have implemented microtypography as well (https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/news.en.html, as I am reading it, in the opening paragraph on version 2.1)

> assuming infinite resolution

this is an assumption that goes against the concept of "f-number" so if one does it, they should not expect to get to anything sensible.

I just meant sensor pixels, because you’re obviously losing those when cropping, but you get the same perspective as from larger focal length (since you’re not moving).

I agree that the images correspond to the same region in object space. Further assumptions on optical resolution don't work well, as the optical resolution depends on the f-number.

The angular resolution depends purely on the aperture diameter, not the f-number. There should be no difference between capturing the image in high resolution, and blowing it up for a lower resolution sensor. All that should be needed is a 200mpx sensor that can output the entire frame in 12mpx, and 12mpx of the central area in full resolution. It's similar to how our eyes work.

I expect depth of focus to be different.

It will not, I specifically included the F-stops for that reason.

The depth of field is determined by the focus distance and the aperture of the lens. Both remain unchanged.

Note that 35mm F/2.0 is the same aperture as 70mm F/4.0. Both lenses have an aperture of 17.5mm. (35/2.0 == 70/4.0)

You can easily verify this with your favorite zoom lens. If you have an 24-70 F/2.8 available to you, you can verify by taking 2 pictures; one at 35mm F/2.8 and one at 70mm F/5.6. Crop the 35mm one to 25% area (half the width, half the height). Render both images to the same size (print, fill screen, whatever) and see for yourself.

Yes, depth of focus will be larger, as signified by the larger f-number.

There is some support, but I do not know the details. You might try and ask in the TeXmacs forum, at http://forum.texmacs.cn/; a few of the developers read it and answer questions and they might have the information you are looking for.

"et alii" for people (masculine plural nominative)

"et alia" for things (neutrum plural nominative)

"et cetera" for things as well

> 1. Write programs that you think are cool

> 2. Learn about data structures and algorithms and complexity and software organization.

> 3. Write programs that you think are cool. But since you know more, you can write more cool programs.

Hegel :-)

> visual output with suboptimal aesthetics (TeXmacs, and, to some extent, LyX)

Till now I took the developers word that the aesthetics of TeXmacs is better than the one of TeX and I would be curious to know where the opposite is true (and in case also why this cannot change)

From what I have seen in TeXmacs documentation, they have implemented pretty much every feature of TeX's linebreaking algorithm and more (microtypography, global page breaking, etc) so my claim above was not to say that the documents TeXmacs outputs have suboptimal aesthetics (to be fair, modern versions of TeX have all of these features, as well, although not the original TeX, alas). What I meant to say was there is no (even theoretically) possible way to have a perfect WYSIWYG editor if global paragraph/page breaking is desired. For example, due to global page breaking, one may be editing a line in the middle of the document and its position on the page (and the page number, left/right headers, etc) will be constantly changing---not good for the visual experience. I do not know how TeXmacs deals with these (extremely rare, admittedly) cases but the discussion was about the true WYSIWYG vs not so take it with a grain of salt. Let me say this again: TeXmacs is an outstanding piece of software. If in thirty years, a TeXmacs file format is still readable by the newest version (possibly with some easy tweaks), I will consider switching from TeX :). My other (minor) concern is that the LaTeX files that TeXmacs exports do not render at all as the pdf files TeXmacs produces itself. So as a WYSIWYG frontend to LaTeX, TeXmacs is ... not quite. Which they never claimed to be so I cannot fault them for this.

Packages for chemistry are useful, even if I don't use them myself. Also siunitx needs yet a TeXmacs equivalent (I think https://github.com/pireddag/SIunits/tree/simple is not yet good enough)

On the other hand if something (in this case ease of installation) helps people to use the tool, then it helps TeXmacs too, which in turn helps users.