[ajkjk]

Well -- TeX is "80s good". We've gotten better at designing ergonomic software since and it really doesn't meet the modern standard. But it's good enough for most people, and sufficiently hard to replace, that it has stuck around.

Added to that, academics specifically are more willing to suffer old crufty stuff than software engineers tend to be. After all their job is to absorb fields of material whether good or bad, and the technology tends to be lagging behind the bleeding edge in many subfields anyway so TeX doesn't even necessarily stand out.

[queuebert]

> TeX is "80s good"

Bingo. Compared to troff and what preceded, TeX was amazing just in its usage. But its real value was in the quality of its typesetting. Knuth put a lot of effort into the beauty and historical correctness of the output, so much so that it was solving optimization problems to calculate line breaks. MS Word still can't break a line properly in 2026.

[lejalv]

If TeX is “80s good”, Typst might be “90s” good, being generous.

Celebrating batch-mode typesetting in 2026 feels like some weird cyberpunk fixation.

Programmable like Emacs (but via Scheme), interfaced with major Computer Algebra Systems, tree-structured documents that are live-queryable and modifiable, and typesetting that rivals TeX without using TeX - TeXmacs provides all that, and much more (https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/videos.en.html)

[ajkjk]

erg. You're not wrong but TexMacs looks like more 80s software that no one wants to use anymore because the user experience is awful.

[bb88]

There was a point in the 1990's where microsoft word wasn't truly WYSIWYG. IIRC it was like an infinite page and the line breaks and page breaks were "estimates"

Further many docs from that era are plagued with abandonware.

TeX did one thing well for an era when often the only interface to the machine was over a Xyplex terminal server connecting to a tty at 9600 baud.