1

I'm working off of a QHD+/WQHD dual monitor setup so nothing Qt powered works for me (TexStudio, TexMaker, etc...)

Does anyone who uses high resolution displays with upscaling know of a robust editor?

Or better yet, some magic trick to get Qt based editors to upscale (there are fixes for the icons but not text AFAIK).

Otherwise, what's the best alternative. I've read a lot about different options but after using primarily TeXWorks, I know what I'd like:

  1. Some sort of basic debugging. Should it really be that difficult for me to find the source of my error when it is just an accidental forgotten }, $, etc...

  2. WYSIWYG. This would be amazing. But as long as point 3 is satisfied, I'll live without.

  3. Faster compiling. My documents take TeXWorks around 30 seconds to render. They are mostly around10 pages. I have an i6 so I can't fathom why it takes so long...

  4. Macro Support. TeXWorks has custom macro support, but I want to make sure your recommendations also have it.

Jordan Epstein
  • 113
  • 2
    Welcome! To be honest, your question isn't very clear as neither of the editors you mention is WYSIWYG. Indeed, I'm not sure what editors would qualify as not even LyX claims this as far as I know. Compiling can't possibly be affected by your display or by your editor. Rendering is a different and quite separate issue. What do you mean by 'macro support'? Note that I don't know anything about the display stuff you're using as that kind of equipment is well beyond my reach: I'm just commenting on the question. – cfr Oct 21 '16 at 02:50
  • @cfr I tried to clear up the question a bit. But the post is that Windows has a setting on high resolution monitors to basically magnify everything so that it's not tiny (unscaled text is impossible to read on my monitors). This works for almost every program out there except for those that use the Qt library. Most TeX IDEs are unfortunately Qt based. – Jordan Epstein Oct 21 '16 at 03:02
  • @cfr I'm quite ignorant on the topic, but isn't it true that if you do a full compile, then make an edit, and then compile again the second compile can be faster than the first? And thus, if an editor always does a clean compile then it will be slower than if it instead kept some of the temporary files around? I'm just trying to think of a rational explanation for why differences in compilation speeds could potentially differ across editors. – scottkosty Oct 21 '16 at 03:10
  • 1
    You haven't explained what you mean by macro support. And those editors are not WYSIWYG, so whatever you mean by that, you need to say. And your documents cannot take longer to compile because of your editor or your display. (Unless the editor simply waits 5 minutes before initiating the command which wouldn't extend the compilation time but might extend the perceive compilation time.) Compilation is not done by your editor and is not something you see. It does not involve rendering anything. Some text is output to the console, so that may be rendered, but it is not your document. – cfr Oct 21 '16 at 03:11
  • @scottkosty I feel like that should be the case but it was taking me a weirdly long time on TeXWorks, I thought maybe different IDEs could handle compilation differently. – Jordan Epstein Oct 21 '16 at 03:14
  • @scottkosty It still wouldn't change compilation time. It might change perceived times, though. But no sane editor destroys temporary files. Of course, if you compile with a tool which always recompiles stuff whether necessary or not, then it will take longer. But that's nothing to do with the editor. But, yes, it would be worth checking what toolchain TW is using. – cfr Oct 21 '16 at 03:14
  • @cfr I reworded things as to not imply that they are WYSIWYG and that they are simply other ones I've tried that don't work because they use Qt – Jordan Epstein Oct 21 '16 at 03:15
  • @JordanEpstein You can configure the tool chain your editor uses even if the default is different from the one you want. It TW is running your chosen compilation sequence multiple times, interspersed with other tools, even when this isn't needed, then it will take longer than an editor which isn't doing this. (The other editor may also be TW.) – cfr Oct 21 '16 at 03:16
  • @JordanEpstein Yes, but you have WYSIWYG in your criteria. What do you mean? Word processors are like this: what you see is what you get, whether you like it or not. TeX editors are typically not: what you see is almost entirely unlike what you get. – cfr Oct 21 '16 at 03:17
  • @cfr good points. Thanks for the explanation. – scottkosty Oct 21 '16 at 03:24
  • @cfr hm very true I was kind-of under the impression that a WYSIWYG TeX editor would have live syncing between PDF and your code. I thought I had seen this before but it's very possible such a thing does not exist – Jordan Epstein Oct 21 '16 at 03:25
  • You are only really going to be able to get answers that deal with #1 and #4. WYSIWYG is not something you get in the TeX world: close is when the editor and viewer are synced so clicking on the PDF (say) will point you back to the .tex file. For faster compiling, that's something the pdfTeX, LuaTeX, or XeTeX (usually using the LaTeX format) do. Your editor won't and can't compile. As for #4, do you mean, you can add in custom macros of your own design? Lots of editors can do that. And many editors can provide #1, too. Look for that big list of editors questions on this site. & use emacs. – jon Oct 21 '16 at 03:27

1 Answers1

1

I don't have experience with monitors above HD, but a quick look around shows Emacs to run pretty well on higher resolutions. https://i.stack.imgur.com/c9sGE.jpg Emacs+Auctex takes some time to setup properly in Windows, but once it does, it's arguably one of the best out there. It's not WYSIWYG, but it does have Yasnippet, which allows you to create macros, and also compiles pretty quickly.

Also, take a look at this list: LaTeX Editors/IDEs to see more options.

Any Emacs specific questions, feel free to let me know and I'll do what I can to help.

Community
  • 1
Jacob Hoehler
  • 26
  • I like emacs so far but damn... can you say steep learning curve? The C-c C-a command lets me view my file at least 10x faster than it did in TeXWorks. – Jordan Epstein Oct 22 '16 at 00:04
  • Yup, the learning curve is brutal. But once you get above the first peak, it gets so so so much easier. Take a look at this: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/20843/useful-shortcuts-or-key-bindings-or-predefined-commands-for-emacsauctex for the key commands. The amount of customization available for it is insane as well.

    When you get a chance, look at Helm, it makes entering commands much quicker/easier, and requires less memorization.

     – Jacob Hoehler Oct 22 '16 at 19:20