News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by mlyle on Saturday August 20, 2022 @03:27PM (#32534559)
> He says he wanted to try "XeTeX" (which supports Unicode) but "...I was going to download it as an experiment and they wanted 5 gigabytes and 5 gigabytes at the particular boonies place I'm living would...mmm..not be finished yet!"

Man, I think once you're Kernighan there should be like a 1gigabit/sec symmetric circuit wherever you go just in case you use it to do something else useful.

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by asddubs on Sunday August 21, 2022 @07:17PM (#32545460)
on the other hand, I've done lots of excellent coding in places with awful internet. fast enough to be able to look things up when you really have to, but too annoying to meaningfully distract yourself
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by JdeBP on Sunday August 21, 2022 @04:36AM (#32538371)
... or a fast car with a load of magnetic tapes (or memory cards, per M. Munroe) in the boot fuelled up and ready to roll. (-:
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by sargstuff on Sunday August 21, 2022 @10:02PM (#32546510)
Ah, thought goto usage was considered harmful.
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by rustqt6 on Saturday August 20, 2022 @06:26PM (#32535693)
You put it jokingly? But distinguished people should definitely get some state managed perks like politicians do.
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by kergonath on Sunday August 21, 2022 @12:18AM (#32537378)
No they should not. They need to live in the same world we do, using the same tools we have. The example being politicians should make one think: do we really need more of this greasy pole and lust for power and freebies in computing? The whole elite mindset is corrosive.

Besides, where would you put the bar for “distinguished”? Who would take the decision?

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by Aeolos on Sunday August 21, 2022 @02:59AM (#32537990)
Other “distinguished” people, obviously.

Which should make the problems of any such system obvious: it inevitably becomes yet another “in club” for people with connections and power.

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by mlyle on Sunday August 21, 2022 @11:28AM (#32541114)
> No they should not. They need to live in the same world we do, using the same tools we have.

Grand prizes with honorariums and perks of various kinds are a longstanding tradition with value.

I was mostly kidding, but: Kernighan totally can afford a big internet connection wherever he is. But he chooses not to buy it. The social benefit from him having one likely outweighs the personal benefit from him buying it.

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by z3t4 on Sunday August 21, 2022 @03:13PM (#32543418)
You should start a fiber/ISP company
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by mlyle on Sunday August 21, 2022 @04:52PM (#32544293)
It would be more of a grand prize with an internet access component. :P

Of course, if I still operated internet access and Kernighan was in my area, I'd definitely comp him a circuit. :P

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by sargstuff on Sunday August 21, 2022 @10:05PM (#32546530)
? Atomatons ?
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by scoot on Saturday August 20, 2022 @04:02PM (#32534780)
THis isn't about bandwidth, it's about the size of modern binaries.
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by mananaysiempre on Saturday August 20, 2022 @04:14PM (#32534854)
TeX distributions are enormous, but the binaries themselves are actually not big—the overhead imposed by Knuth’s obnoxious license, while nonzero (you can’t modify the original Pascal-in-WEB source, only patch it, so a manual source port to a different language is painful enough that nobody tried, we’re all using an automatic Pascal-to-C translation with lipstick on it), is not huge, and aside from a smattering of utilities that’s it for the binary part.

It’s just that the distros also include oodles of (plain text!) macro packages for everything under the sun. There are some legitimately large things such as fonts, but generally speaking a full TeXLive or MiKTeX distribution is bloat by ten thousand 100-kilobyte files, like a Python distribution with the whole of PyPI included.

If you know what you want, you can probably fit a comprehensive LaTeX workbench in under 50M, but it takes an inordinate amount of time.

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by svat on Saturday August 20, 2022 @07:24PM (#32536033)
I agree with your main point about the binaries being small and a reasonable LaTeX distribution fitting in under 50 MiB (I think starting with a minimal MiKTeX and letting it install what you need a few times will leave you there as well), but regarding

> a manual source port to a different language is painful enough that nobody tried

there are in fact quite a few, many of which are complete: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/507846/are-there-any...

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by inglor_cz on Saturday August 20, 2022 @04:10PM (#32534829)
Pardon me, but why have modern binaries grown so big? When I wrote my thesis in TeX, the entire installation would fit in some 30 megabytes or so. It was actually right in the uncomfortable middle. Far too big to carry around on a set of diskettes, but a CD would be waste of space.
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by mlyle on Saturday August 20, 2022 @04:24PM (#32534912)
You can fit a decent TeX distribution in <100MB.

But if you want to have every macro package that everyone everywhere likes, you're going to use some space.

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by Turing_Machine on Saturday August 20, 2022 @04:33PM (#32534968)
I've often wondered why there isn't a dependency system for TeX that lets you get only the packages you need... feed it a document and tell it to automatically download and install any missing packages.

There may be some technical reason why this isn't practical. Anyone know, offhand?

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by kccqzy on Saturday August 20, 2022 @04:43PM (#32535019)
Totally practical and supported. See MikTeX: https://miktex.org/kb/just-enough-tex

But the reason I don't use it is because I don't always have Internet when I need to write my document. I'd rather download all the packages and their documentation beforehand.

Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by bombcar on Saturday August 20, 2022 @08:24PM (#32536310)
When stuck on a plane without wifi the only thing I could find on my computer to read were the Tex manuals. Good stuff.
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by rdlw on Saturday August 20, 2022 @05:53PM (#32535465)
MikTeX also supports downloading individual packages, though I wish there was an option to download, say, the most commonly used 1GB or something.
Re:Brian Kernighan adds Unicode support to Awk by mickmcq on Saturday August 20, 2022 @06:18PM (#32535647)
There is a TeX distribution that does what you say, TinyTeX. For some reason it is obscure and only really used by R and R Studio users. That may be because it is used to render R Markdown documents to pdf.