Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #36570
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) |
| Date | 2015-02-14 19:37 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mbo4kf$mit$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <mblehn$igq$1@dont-email.me> <mblgbb$qa7$1@dont-email.me> <mblidn$3lq$1@dont-email.me> <mblmod$nhh$1@dont-email.me> <2015Feb14.112126@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>You better ask Tim Berner-Lee why he invented HTML, and didn't just put >>LaTeX into his browser; the latter would have made a lot of sense, since >>all >>the people at CERN usually write their stuff in LaTeX anyways. But it >>would have been more work upfront. > > I think it would have been less work; the browser would have been just > wget (new, because it did not exist at the time. but simple to write), > latex and xdvi, with extensions for hyperlinks. The problem would > have been that on the hardware of 1990 , it would have been too slow. > Our LaTeX benchmark takes 93s on a 486/66 > <http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/franz/latex-bench>. The best > hardware in 1990 was something like a 33MHz 486 or R3000, and > Berners-Lee had to target the majority of existing hardware, e.g., > something like a 16MHz 386. Ok, a web page would not take as much > time as our LaTeX benchmark, but still too much. Berner-Lee only wrote for the NeXT cubes they had available. Your benchmark runs on a 140k byte LaTeX document, rendering 33 pages. The typical web page of that time was one page. Furthermore, using LaTeX, you could have prerendered all pages, and just transmitted the dvis. xdvi really did perform very well, and was only slightly larger than the original LaTeX (212kB for the 140kB of your benchmark). xdvi however was very slow on embedded images, since these images were embedded as PostScript. But that could have been solved easily, just add another \special for gif and jpeg. > Did they have to? HTML 2.0 is fine for most of my uses, and 4.0 > covers the rest (and provides lots of unneeded fluff). I don't need > styles, and I am pretty sure they were not needed for what Berners-Lee > had in mind, either. So he took the Forth approach: Created something > new tailored for his needs instead of catering for future expansion. The original idea of Berner-Lee was to improve communication between scientists at CERN. The sort of people who already write a lot of LaTeX. Maybe it would have been a bad idea if his original idea was kids who post selfies on Facebook, but that wasn't the original showcase. The LaTeX community back then already had found out that they needed styles. > Why he based HTML on SGML instead of on LaTeX or the kind of markup > used in Usenet postings is a good question. HTML is worse than either > for writing stuff manually, and that has led to stuff like WYSIWYG > editors for HTML, which were pretty bad. OTOH, TeX as a language is > also badly designed, so I can understand that he did not want to go > there. IMHO, TeX already is one of my showcases, that you should not thing about adding a language late in the process. Originally, TeX was supposed to do all the typesetting, and TeX, as programming language, just gradually evolved. > Anyway, the Chuck Moore approach of throwing everything away upon > encountering new requirements and designing the new thing from scratch > was not taken for HTML. Instead, the tried and proven methods of the > software industry were used, and they result in bloat. The web is 25 > years old, and has expanded in usage far beyond the original vision, > so it's no wonder that browsers are bloated (the most popular ones are > based on Mosaic from 1993, so even the software itself has seen > "organic growth" for 22 years). And Opera also has a 20-year history. Hm, currently Chrome is the most popular browser, based on khtml, which was signifantly slimmer, and also easier to maintain, which was the reason why Apple picked it up to base Safari/WebKit on, and later Google joined. KHTML was started in 1999, 6 years after Mosaic, and the first usable version was released in 2000, as part of KDE 2.0. At that time, all the stuff like CSS, DOM, and JavaScript had already been added, so Lars Knoll could design his code to the actual spec, which certainly is an advantage. > And while users may moan about bloated software, they still buy it, > and let the slim competition die from lack of revenue. Ah, the browser industry is not a "buy" industry. It's either free software, or deeply integrated in the operating system. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/ net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-12 12:13 -0800
Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-12 12:56 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-12 21:32 +0000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-13 13:08 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-13 19:39 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-13 14:14 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-13 21:28 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-13 14:22 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 01:34 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-13 22:42 -0800
HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-14 10:21 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 19:37 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-14 11:13 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 21:07 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 12:50 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 22:32 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 15:10 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-15 10:34 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-15 22:15 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-16 12:45 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-15 13:55 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-16 13:52 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-16 15:47 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-16 09:05 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-17 12:21 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-20 13:23 -0800
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-20 22:33 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-21 15:14 +0000
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-21 20:23 +0100
Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-21 11:33 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-14 10:14 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-22 01:57 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-22 18:35 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-23 01:58 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-23 04:59 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-23 19:18 -0500
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-23 18:09 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-24 01:04 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-24 02:51 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-24 10:23 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-23 21:19 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-23 17:58 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-24 01:07 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-24 02:19 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-02-15 12:18 +0000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-13 18:55 +0000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-02-13 20:27 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-13 09:53 -1000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-13 14:18 +0000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-13 11:03 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-13 22:46 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-14 02:35 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-02-14 18:47 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-14 18:56 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-02-15 17:10 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-16 01:20 -0800
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-02-16 12:35 +0100
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-16 08:12 -1000
Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-02-16 15:17 -0800
csiph-web