Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:56:33 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1NDwgYK028347 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:58:42 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n1NDqEIW020273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:52:15 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1NA7G3K010151; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:52:14 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 172337 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:52:13 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1NDqDK1031047 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:52:13 +0100 Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk [139.222.130.185]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1NDq3U9002706 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:52:06 +0100 Received: from [139.222.131.131] (helo=ueams02.uea.ac.uk) by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LbbE2-0005eY-KG for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:52:02 +0000 Received: from [139.222.114.191] by ueams02.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LbbDz-0002F6-Oq for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:51:59 +0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <49A25EC2.8040509@morningstar2.co.uk> <86ab8de69c.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <49A2AA02.9050408@morningstar2.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:52:02 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Joseph Wright Subject: Re: "Microkernel" comments To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <86ab8de69c.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -4 () RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2009 13:56:33.0801 (UTC) FILETIME=[89623790:01C995BE] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5668 Hello David, Thanks for the comments: useful to hear what people not actively working with the current LaTeX3 ideas think. > Encourage Jonathan and Taco to converge, or at least Jonathan to try > integrating essential programming parts of LuaTeX into XeTeX. From what I understood on the XeTeX list, this is non-trivial (especially as LuaTeX is not finalised yet). > TeX's inherent limitations as a programming language are a major pain. > They will both cause performance and maintenance issues for a > "microkernel", to a degree where one will tend to code bypassing this > kernel for efficiency reasons. That's of course a good point. I'm not sure how one measures this. Perhaps we'll get a sense for the "cost" of the system if something which is big but efficient in TeX/LaTeX2e gets translated to expl3 and we can then compare the two. Suggestions for a good test case? As computers get faster, this is perhaps slightly less of an issue. (Robin Fairburns has pointed out to me that something like my siunitx package would have been impossible with earlier TeX systems as it would have simply been too slow.) > If the proposed microkernel would default to hook into Lua as its > algorithmic interface and we can get Taco and Jonathan to converge to a > common functionality subset that we can base this on, I think that the > benefits could be worth the decision to ditch all other engines. This is, I suppose, the calculation that the ConTeXt people have made. However, Karl Berry has pointed out to me in the past that the ConTeXt user base is rather "selective", and so their calculation has rather different considerations to those for LaTeX. -- Joseph Wright