How is ClutTeX different from latexmk?

[ghost]

The latexmk command used to be the uniformly accepted "make" command for TeX. It does not seem to support makeglossaries, and still keeps all the files in the same directory.

Are these the only differences? Would it be possible to document how exactly cluttex improves over latemk?

[atticus-sullivan]

I think you're right, as stated on ctan:

The main feature of this tool is that it does not clutter your working directory with .aux or .log or other auxiliary files.

It has been a while I've worked with latexmk, so maybe this feature is in it too, but cluttex can in addition watch the input files for changes (via an external tool). And for me the output of cluttex is just more readable with the coloring and I have a better overview what is done.

I'm not the main developer and am most probably not using all of its features, so I may be missing something but for me thats is.

A more personal difference is that I like lua and feel more comfortable if I can easily make changes or read and understand the code (I don't know pearl) and somehow latexmk sometimes felt too much and a bit cluttered, but that's just personal.

[koppor]

@lockywolf Note that hints making latexmk being aware of makeglossaries are given at https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/44316/9075. However, it does not place the call correctly - the page numbers are off by two in my case (because the run was too early).

The main advantage I see is that it is implemented in lua and thus no additoinal tooling (perl) needs to be installed.