I find it hard to consider the abstractions "better" when they are so far behind the performance of the ones that were used. Higher level? Certainly. Better?
I still reject that they are better, and more that education should strive for better results. That is, if you define them as better with no argument allowed, then they are of course better. However, if you were to objectively compare them... I am unsure why they would be awarded the success. Again, higher level and/or easier to understand? Sure. Better?? By what metric?
This would be akin to declaiming that Newtonian physics is "better" than quantam, because it is easier to understand.
Also consider that TeX is still one of the more widely read source programs in existance. And there have been frighteningly few bugs. There are undoubtedly more bugs in this rewrite with "better" abstractions than there are in what is being rewritten. So it loses stability. It is slower. So it loses speed.
What, exactly, is it truly better at?
As indicated in another post, I am unsure that this really succeeded at the pedagogical goals that were intended. If anything, it almost shines as an example of how we have gone awry in teaching developers.
I found his emphasis on history to be unusual and refreshing, but we don't certainly don't need to agree on someone else's goals for their project.
That said, I personally don't see a lot of value in being too critical of projects with different goals. (That feels a little bit like back-seat driving where you have a different destination in mind than the person behind the wheel.) If someone has the motivation and creativity to embark on a project, good for them.
If you or someone else wants to port TeX with different goals, that's also fine.
In any case, until Glenn's source code is available, neither one of us can say very much about the code he has written.
Oh, I am not against the excercise. I would even go so far as to applaud the work. What I do not care for, is essentially sloppy science in how we declare successes.
I mean, this is essentially back-seat driving Knuth, of all people.
And... TeX has been widely ported as is. I am in the crowd that is somewhat unconvinced it needs a rewrite.
