About:
GNU TeXmacs is a free wysiwyw (what you see is what you want) editing platform with special features for scientists. The software aims to provide a unified and user friendly framework for editing structured documents with different types of content: text, mathematics, graphics, interactive content. TeXmacs can also be used as an interface to many external systems for computer algebra, numerical analysis, and statistics. New presentation styles can be written by the user and new features can be added to the editor using Scheme.

Author:
Joris van der Hoeven [contact developer]

Rating:	reset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8.51/10.00 (39 votes)

Homepage:
http://www.texmacs.org/
Tar/GZ:
http://www.texmacs.org/Download/Install.html
Changelog:
http://www.texmacs.org/Web/Changes.html
RPM package:
http://www.texmacs.org/Download/RPM.html
Debian package:
http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/download/debian.en.html
OS X package:
http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/texmacs
BSD Ports URL:
http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/download/bsd.en.html
CVS tree (cvsweb):
http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/download/cvs.en.html
Mailing list archive:
http://lists.texmacs.org/wws/arc/texmacs-users
Mirror site:
http://www.gnu.org/software/texmacs/

Trove categories: [change]

[Development Status]		5 - Production/Stable
[Environment]		X11 Applications
[Intended Audience]		End Users/Desktop
[License]		OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License (GPL)
[Operating System]		MacOS X, Microsoft :: Windows, Microsoft :: Windows :: Cygwin, Microsoft :: Windows :: Windows NT/2000/XP, POSIX :: BSD, POSIX :: Linux, POSIX :: SunOS/Solaris
[Programming Language]		C++, Scheme
[Topic]		Internet :: WWW/HTTP :: Browsers, Office/Business :: Office Suites, Scientific/Engineering, Scientific/Engineering :: Mathematics, Scientific/Engineering :: Visualization, Software Development :: Documentation, Terminals, Text Editors, Text Editors :: Documentation, Text Editors :: Emacs, Text Editors :: Word Processors, Text Processing, Text Processing :: Fonts, Text Processing :: Markup, Text Processing :: Markup :: HTML/XHTML, Text Processing :: Markup :: TeX/LaTeX

Dependencies: [change]
No dependencies filed

 Branches

Branch	Version	Last release	License	URLs
Default	1.0.6.15	16-Aug-2008	GNU General Public License (GPL)

 Releases

Version	Focus	Date
1.0.6.15	Minor feature enhancements	16-Aug-2008 18:00
1.0.6.14	Minor feature enhancements	19-Mar-2008 17:19
1.0.6.12	Code cleanup	05-Nov-2007 14:21
1.0.6.11	Minor feature enhancements	03-Sep-2007 17:44
1.0.6.10	Minor feature enhancements	14-May-2007 11:43
1.0.6.9	Minor feature enhancements	12-Feb-2007 12:16
1.0.6.8	Code cleanup	18-Jan-2007 14:46
1.0.6.7	Minor feature enhancements	12-Dec-2006 11:56
1.0.6.6	Code cleanup	21-Aug-2006 14:02
1.0.6.5	Minor feature enhancements	07-Aug-2006 14:31

 Comments

[»] Project Website
by Turgon of Gondolin - Aug 14th 2008 18:35:29

I really like the look of the TexMacs' website. I was surprised to see that the meta tag said it was generated in TexMacs, but saw in the FAQ that you do export your TexMacs documents to generate the website. That's exciting to me for making web pages with MathML. However, I noticed many errors when I entered the website address in http://validator.w3.org/. Might that suggest that the export to HTML needs work?

--
I wish *I* had a mountain fortress.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Project Website
by Joris van der Hoeven - Aug 16th 2008 15:55:06


> I really like the look of the TexMacs' website. I was surprised to see that

> the meta tag said it was generated in TexMacs, but saw in the FAQ that you do

> export your TexMacs documents to generate the website. That's exciting

> to me for making web pages with MathML. However, I noticed many errors when I

> entered the website address in http://validator.w3.org/. Might that

> suggest that the export to HTML needs work?

Sure, there may be some bugs. Any help in order to correct them would be helpful.
Please suscribe to the developers mailing list (or contact me directly) for further discussion.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Congrats to GNU TeXmacs
by RSBohn - Dec 7th 2004 15:21:12

Congratulations to GNU TeXmacs, top project in the first edition of the Freshmeat.net Vitality Countdown. RSBohn

--
RSBohn http://fundamental.antville.org

[reply] [top]

[»] Port to (gasp) Windows?
by gp - Jun 21st 2004 17:58:51

I love the plug-in capability to use TeXmacs with Cycas and other CAS utilities, as this fills neatly the void of a GPL Math program that can be used for both computation and presentation (a huge time waster). However, as has yet to be destablished, MS is the mainstay, and a windows port would be FANTASTIC! Any plans to do that?

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Port to (gasp) Windows?
by Joris van der Hoeven - Jun 22nd 2004 01:40:47


> a windows port would be FANTASTIC! Any plans to do that?


We are working on that; see http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/download/windows.en.html for an alpha-version.


[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Port to (gasp) Windows?
by evokateur - Oct 1st 2008 03:26:57

It runs perfectly well on windows with cygwin with X-11 and is included as an option in the cygwin installer.


> I love the plug-in capability to use

> TeXmacs with Cycas and other CAS

> utilities, as this fills neatly the void

> of a GPL Math program that can be used

> for both computation and presentation (a

> huge time waster). However, as has yet

> to be destablished, MS is the mainstay,

> and a windows port would be FANTASTIC!

> Any plans to do that?



[reply] [top]

---

[»] Name is misleading
by submissions - May 8th 2003 05:34:03

Great program! I've been looking for such a text editor ever since I got a computer. It's really a pleasure writing stuff in Texmacs, and it makes huge programs like Word obsolete IMHO.

I think the name is a bit misleading though. It has nothing to do with emacs. Being a vi user myself, I was at first scared to download and try texmacs. :)

How about TeXditor or TeXuthor?

[reply] [top]

[»] Nice job!
by Tom Fawcett - Oct 6th 2002 10:47:39

I'm a long time user of tex and latex. I'm impressed with what they've managed to do with TeXmacs. Keep up the good work!

[reply] [top]

[»] Just my 2 cents
by Twinkle - Oct 10th 2001 09:46:47

TeXmacs exists, if nothing else, in it's own right.

I've used Tex for a long time, and occasionally
MS Word, StarOffice, etc., and TeXmacs is a fine
project on typesetting.

Please keep up the good work.

[reply] [top]

[»] Not much point in there
by jofi - Sep 4th 2001 03:46:38

TeX's high quality isn't made up only by TeX's fonts, but by flexible character and line distances, which have to be recalculated in a complex algorithm after each text change.
The purpose of TeX is to achieve high quality in the output, not in the editing window, which is neither achievable nor sensible.
In order to create TeX-files you should have an advanced text editor, of course. This solves the editing problems that are probably the reason behind this project.
So, I'm afraid, but there isn't much point for `TeX'macs in my opinion.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Not much point in there
by Joris van der Hoeven - Sep 7th 2001 17:26:33


> TeX's high quality isn't made up only by TeX's fonts, but by flexible character and
> line distances, which have to be recalculated in a complex algorithm after each text change.

Maybe the abstract has mislead you, but these flexible character and line distances are also supported by TeXmacs. As a matter of fact, most complex TeX algorithms (hyphenation, line-breaking, etc.) are the same or similar in TeXmacs and in TeX. From several points of view, there are even improvements in typesetting quality.


> The purpose of TeX is to achieve high quality in the output,
> not in the editing window, which is neither achievable nor sensible. Why would this not be achievable or sensible? I think/hope that TeXmacs proves the contrary. See also http://www.texmacs.org/Data/TeXmacs.pdf for some explanations on this issue.

> So, I'm afraid, but there isn't much point for `TeX'macs in my opinion.

I hope that you first gave TeXmacs a serious try before writing your comment.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Not much point in there
by jofi - Sep 8th 2001 05:31:01


>
> which have to be recalculated in a complex
> algorithm after each text change.
> Okay, okay. I've overlooked that you do exactly this. Wow, computers have become
really fast, haven't they. So I'm wrong with `not achievable' and should have written better
`hard to achieve'.
Anway, still I can't see the benefit of this effort. When creating a LaTeX file, there is one
window, where to edit the source text, and a second to see what you get. What is the benefit of getting this in one window?
Is it easy editing? I doubt this. With a programmable text editor creating LaTeX files is as easy as writing a Word document. (Interestingly you are using scheme somewhere.)
In my view, wysiwyg is useful when creating newspaper pages or the like, moving quickly parts of the text and/or pictures around, seeing how it looks like and deciding if it is attractive.
But playing around with layout is not the purpose of LaTeX. In sharp contrast, LaTeX's philosphy is to keep the provided professional layout and to think only about what you are writing, i.e. organise it, structurize it -- but never worry about layout. (Though there are many people around that do not appreciate this.)


[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Not much point in there
by Joris van der Hoeven - Oct 3rd 2001 21:21:39

This is starting to get repetitive. Please
(1) give the program a real try;
(2) look at the pointer I gave in my previous answer.
If, after that, you are still not convinced, then we may at least have a serious discussion.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Not much point in there
by wenye - Jun 1st 2002 18:02:32

I think TeXmacs has its points. I find TeXmacs is a good choice for my editor for its combination of both the idea of TeX and wysiwyg. Actually, without TeXmacs, I'm considering to write one for myself. There is no omnipotent editor that can satisfy everybody. But TeXmacs is a valuable project. There are still some problems in it, like the page partition algorithm. I hope it will be better and better.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Not much point in there
by Free software lover - Sep 21st 2001 15:26:10

I have been using TeXmacs for about a year or so now. At last scientists like me have a free and simple to use tool for writing beautiful texts. I also have many years of experience with TeX, AMS-TeX, Blah-TeX, and so on :o(. If the TeXmacs program continues to improve as it does, then there will soon be no point any more in using the old fashioned TeX stuff (in my opinion).

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Not much point in there
by yohan555 - Oct 4th 2001 13:37:09

As somebody who publishes quite frequently in scientific journals it seems to me that the primary problem is compatibility and acceptance.

Most publishers these days require either a word or wordperfect file to be send in with the draft. Some publishers do in fact accept LaTeX, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Remember, they need a version they can typeset (these days they are actually using Framemaker, just got an article back for proof reading from the American Chemical Society that was formatted using Framemaker)

While I really like both the concept and the program, it'll be tough to convince publishers to accept the electronic form produced with TeXmacs.

Yohan.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Scientific journals
by Joris van der Hoeven - Oct 4th 2001 21:00:13

Yes, I agree with what you say ... but ... how to turn a program into a standard? If, as a user, you think that TeXmacs is sufficiently nice for writing papers for journals, then please help: put a notice in your paper to say that it was prepared using TeXmacs and just try to submit the paper in TeXmacs format. After all, where are the editors good for if they can't convert incoming papers to their preferred formats?

[reply] [top]

---