7

Can someone please provide me the features available in LaTeX3. The reason for me to post this question is that I have not started to learn about KOMA-Script. I am aware of how powerful it is. But now should I go for KOMA-Script or LaTeX3?

yo'
  • 51,322
subham soni
  • 9,673

2 Answers2

24

KOMA-Script is a family of documentclasses (scrbook scrartcl scrreprt scrlettr2), which allow you to customize your documents more than the standard classes (book article report letter) do.

LaTeX3 is right now mainly a new programming language which is not directly useful for creating documents. It is meant to be the new way to write packages and classes.

In the future LaTeX3 aims to be a complete replacement to LaTeX2e, with perhaps an entirely new command set to write documents, and also a ton of internal improvements to how things are handled. This is as for now a work in progress.

marczellm
  • 11,809
  • 7
    Small correction: KOMA-Script is a family of document classes and packages. Some of these packages can be used independently of KOMA-Script classes. – Speravir Feb 04 '14 at 18:25
17

LaTeX3 is not meant to be a substitute for document classes such as Memoir or those in the KOMA-Scripts bundle.

Currently, LaTeX3 defines a new programming language for class and package authors called expl3, and it provides a small number of packages directed towards document authors, such as xparse. The latter facilitates the creation of user-defined document commands and environments. A famous example of a package written in expl3 is siunitx.

For now, as a normal user of classes and packages (even if programmed using LaTeX3 concepts) you shouldn't worry too much about LaTeX3. However, the plan is that LaTeX3 should take the place of LaTeX2e, which would then get obsoleted.

AlexG
  • 54,894
  • 3
    LaTeX3 is much more than a programming language (which is called expl3) but much of it right now is in development or even only an idea :) – cgnieder Feb 04 '14 at 14:17
  • @cgnieder: Aha. So far, I thought expl3 stands for 'experimental LaTeX3', and one day, when it is ready, that is, after having been turned into a format, it will be called 'LaTeX3'. – AlexG Feb 04 '14 at 14:25
  • 1
    @AlexG See http://latex-project.org/papers/2013-10-24-latex3.pdf and texdoc xtemplate (where the consensus over xtemplate is that it needs to reworked, but the basic concepts are sound). Also see http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/118015/17423. – Sean Allred Feb 04 '14 at 16:01
  • 2
    thanks @SeanAllred. So Alex, please do me a favor and retract the above statement it is simply not true; or only true for expl3 whic his the underlying programming language "for LaTeX3". By the way, expl3 indeed stood at one point for "EXperimental Programing Language" and the abbrev got stuck. But you can happily think of it now as EXtended Programming Language" given its abilities :-) – Frank Mittelbach Feb 05 '14 at 17:25
  • @Frank: I am not sure if the answer is better now. Feel free to edit and improve it. – AlexG Feb 05 '14 at 20:17
  • ... or even turn it into cwiki. – AlexG Feb 05 '14 at 20:50
  • @AlexG “obsoleted” is a difficult term in tex -- people like to hang on. when latex 2e appeared, it obsoleted latex 2.09, but people still (20 years later) turn up with a 2.09 document that they compile through the compatibility mode support in 2e. latex 3 offers several different moves away from the original, but still inter-works (in the sense of being plugged-in to 2e documents). how many "pure" 2e documents will we see in 2034, i wonder? – wasteofspace Feb 07 '14 at 23:57
  • @AlexG First you say some of the packages are aimed at document authors. Then you say not to worry about LaTeX3. This is a bit misleading, I think. If you are the sort of document author who uses \newcommand, \def etc., then it is well worth looking at what these packages have to offer. For example, it is possible to avoid the use of TeX commands such as \def in a wider range of cases than with only the commands from 2e. If you don't use custom commands etc. much, you obviously have little to gain. – cfr Feb 08 '14 at 00:05