How to Reproduce This Book with LaTeX(github.com)
github.com
How to Reproduce This Book with LaTeX
https://github.com/BenjaminGor/Latex_Notes_Tutorial
14 comments
As an alternative to Overleaf, I found Crixet to be quite useful. It appears to be based on WASM and has fewer usage restrictions.
I went to give Crixet a try, and there was a AI assistant in the editor. I looked in the settings to turn it off and the setting to do so said "I prefer my ignorance handcrafted, organic, and 100% human-made."
:)
:)
Trusting LaTeX to automatically distribute tables and figures produces not-very-readable documents with tables and figures interrupting content (e.g. page 12).
> The default LATEX compiler in both cases will likely be pdfLaTeX, and to make things smooth, we will stick with that. However, note that there are the more powerful XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX, which can be a suitable choice for advanced users.
> XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX As a remark, if the document will be mainly in Chinese/Japanese/Korean or any other non-Latin language in general, then it may be more beneficial to just switch to the XeLaTeX or LuaLaTeX compiler since they directly support UTF-8 encoded text. However, we will keep ourselves to the default pdfLaTeX compiler to avoid complications.
This is just FUD. XeLaTeX/LuaLaTeX do not introduce any "complications" and are not only for "advanced users". Switching is easy, and programs without any Unicode support should simply not be used these days.
> The default LATEX compiler in both cases will likely be pdfLaTeX, and to make things smooth, we will stick with that. However, note that there are the more powerful XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX, which can be a suitable choice for advanced users.
> XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX As a remark, if the document will be mainly in Chinese/Japanese/Korean or any other non-Latin language in general, then it may be more beneficial to just switch to the XeLaTeX or LuaLaTeX compiler since they directly support UTF-8 encoded text. However, we will keep ourselves to the default pdfLaTeX compiler to avoid complications.
This is just FUD. XeLaTeX/LuaLaTeX do not introduce any "complications" and are not only for "advanced users". Switching is easy, and programs without any Unicode support should simply not be used these days.
I don’t get why XeLaTeX didn’t automatically obviate all the others by now to begin with, at least for any greenfield applications.
(I use tectonic now but had been using XeLaTeX for more than a decade before.)
(I use tectonic now but had been using XeLaTeX for more than a decade before.)
> Trusting LaTeX to automatically distribute tables and figures produces not-very-readable documents with tables and figures interrupting content (e.g. page 12).
The positioning of the table on page 12 is completely inline with how tables/figures are placed in books and academic figures. The rule is that all displayed tables/figures should either be placed at the top or bottom of a page. Ideally, they should be placed on the same page as they are first mentioned in the text, but if this is not possible, it is acceptable to push them to subsequent pages.
Interestingly, the author did manually specify `[ht!]` options for the table, and not for some other tables further in the chapter.
The positioning of the table on page 12 is completely inline with how tables/figures are placed in books and academic figures. The rule is that all displayed tables/figures should either be placed at the top or bottom of a page. Ideally, they should be placed on the same page as they are first mentioned in the text, but if this is not possible, it is acceptable to push them to subsequent pages.
Interestingly, the author did manually specify `[ht!]` options for the table, and not for some other tables further in the chapter.
> This is just FUD. XeLaTeX/LuaLaTeX do not introduce any "complications" and are not only for "advanced users".
I agree that LuaLaTeX is the only sensible recommendation for beginners, and is actually easier to use in most cases, but there can occasionally be some complications with old packages/classes/preambles that were written with pdfLaTeX (or even classical DVI LaTeX) in mind. This is fairly rare, and usually means that the package/preamble is just broken, but hearing that isn't very useful for users who just want to fix their broken documents.
I agree that LuaLaTeX is the only sensible recommendation for beginners, and is actually easier to use in most cases, but there can occasionally be some complications with old packages/classes/preambles that were written with pdfLaTeX (or even classical DVI LaTeX) in mind. This is fairly rare, and usually means that the package/preamble is just broken, but hearing that isn't very useful for users who just want to fix their broken documents.
[deleted]
> This is just FUD. XeLaTeX/LuaLaTeX do not introduce any "complications"
Well, there are still some packages that work flawlessly with pdfLaTeX, but not completely with LuaLaTeX or XeLaTeX --- microtype is the canonical example.
Well, there are still some packages that work flawlessly with pdfLaTeX, but not completely with LuaLaTeX or XeLaTeX --- microtype is the canonical example.
Would have loved this books years ago ... Now I'm only interested if s/latex/typst
Is this LaTeX Quine ?
So many .sty (but not only) files to download elsewhere.
Maybe it's better to include them in the repository itself.
Once all the files downloaded, I run into several compiling errors.
Maybe it's better to include them in the repository itself.
Once all the files downloaded, I run into several compiling errors.
[deleted]
typst is so much nicer than latex, although unfortunately a lot of universities/publishers still accept only latex.
[deleted]