I've never been persuaded by Rosen's account of that repeat. Most accomplished pianists are plenty bright and have read their Rosen, but don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say. (His preference for the early Schumann editions, for instance.)
Rosen did mention that persistent error eventually harden into tradition, and we get used to anything, and what we are used to becomes what feels right. On the other hand I have never heard that Chopin sonata before I read Rosen's arguments, so starting the repeat from the beginning feels right for me.
In any case the evidence seems incontrovertible to me. The majority of the earliest sources support the reading, Brahms felt it was correct. The end of the exposition prepares for the Grave perfectly both in terms of rhythm and harmony, and the Grave appears in the development so it's clearly not a separate introduction. Are there any evidence for the other reading other than "we've always done it like this"?
I've formatted ~100 non-scientific books with LaTeX, including poetry and experimental/avant-garde fiction that makes considerable layout demands. I have yet to run into a problem that could not be solved. It isn't always the best tool for the job — for layouts with lots of images that need to be precisely placed with text, something like Affinity Publisher or InDesign would be a shorter path to the right result — but it's an amazing and remarkably painless system. If you are producing "incredibly inelegant bloat code" with it, I'd hazard that something other than LaTeX itself is responsible.
I mean, good for you and congrats, so you must be right. Something other than LaTeX must be responsible for so many non-academics and non-technical people bouncing so hard off of it for almost any other tool. It can't possibly be anything related to LaTeX because if you're so good at it, anyone can be.
It is indeed in The Tao Is Silent — Raymond's first popular book and one of his best. There's a recent reading of the dialogue on YouTube by Curt Jaimungal, on the "Theory of Everything" channel: https://youtu.be/P-jh6tRh3Jw
> Luring people into answering (and implicitly asking) an “unasked existential ques-tion” by contacting them about your conceptual book? In some ways it soundslike you’re a meta-author using editors as writing tools; in other ways it soundslike you’re just lazily getting editors to write a book for you. Please take this asconfirmation that I will not be writing any material for your book.
Gilbert Sorrentino's Mulligan Stew leads off with rejection letters. One might question the authenticity, given some of the signatures, but they are entertaining.
