111–120 of 224 posts
Typst is the modern LaTeX. https://typst.app/
Typst doesn't (yet) have one of the features that make LaTex stand out: microtypography. See https://github.com/typst/typst/issues/4693
Check out Tectonic which is an all-in-one LaTeX toolchain (single executable w/ engine + build system) that lazily downloads TeX Live (no upfront multi-gig downloads). It's a breath of fresh air in the chaotic LaTeX landscape. Bit of a shame that they opted for XeTeX rather than LuaTeX though. [0]: https://github.com/tectonic-typesetting/tectonic
Typst is the modern LaTeX. https://typst.app/
Typst sure has a lot of good marketeers. LaTeX never needed that.
I would suspect (based on my own experience) is that the reason folks shout "typst!" anytime they hear latex is that the user experience is 1000x better than latex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Case in point, by the time I got at CERN in 2003, most researchers were writing their papers in Word or FrameMaker, with LaTeX lookalike templates. In two years I hardly met anyone still doing pure LaTeX publications, unless the publishing body only accepted LaTeX as submission format.
Currently you will find that LaTeX is the de facto standard at CERN. Maybe only management would not use it. But CERN gives overleaf professional licence to each member. And all templates I have seen for everything I interacted with that is going into publications are LaTeX.
pros:
- one small compiler that can output: pdf, png, svg, html
- compilation is fast (see below)
- syntax is much cleaner than Latex
- few ways of to a thing
- already has all the templates most people need
- tooling is good enough with VS Code
- supports SVG images
cons:
- less users?
time typst compile cv.typ
________________________________________________________
Executed in 126.21 millis fish external
usr time 93.66 millis 0.07 millis 93.58 millis
sys time 37.97 millis 1.51 millis 36.46 millisEarlier quoted context omitted.
HTML+CSS has facilities to target a page format (CSS @page rule, cm and in dimension units). Not to say that it's on the same level as LaTeX, but it's pretty impressive by its own right.
Are there good deep dives on how far you can practically this? Especially in combination with headless browser pdf generation? Last time I looked into it, a while ago, my impression was that it would get rickety too soon. It’d be a good place to be, I think, if web and “document” tech stacks could have nice and practical convergence.
I'm finally updating my CV after years of neglect. I'm keen on switching to the route of Org mode -> LaTeX -> PDF. It's partly because I love the simplicity/power of Org and I do all my writing in it nowadays, the other part is to separate the content from the presentation so I can have the content in two different languages but still end up with the same formatted document for both. Anyone have experience with this…
Take a look at these templates I made a while back https://github.com/subidit/rover-resume I tried to avoid custom commands and environments to keep it simple. Your content in org text should fit nicely with this. It also has a template where the preamble is stored in different file such that you can try a different look by just un/commenting a different preamble file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do footnotes in markdown [^0] [^0]: it doesn't matter where this is placed, just that this one has a colon. The table of contents thing is annoying but it's not hard to write a little bash script. Sed and regex are all you need. > Markdown doesn't have enough features Markdown has too many features The issue is you're using the wrong tool. Markdown is not intended for making fancy documents or blogs, it's mea…
> The issue is you're using the wrong tool. Yes, I think we're in violent agreement that markdown is the wrong tool for the job. That's why I find it baffling how so many blogging & documentation tools lock you in to using markdown, with its anaemic feature set (eg mdbook). Even markdown + inline HTML is wildly inadequate. For example, you can't make automatically numbered sections. Or figures with links in the text.…
> That's why I find it baffling how so many blogging & documentation tools lock you in to using
Honestly, I think a good portion of it of the unwillingness to toss something aside and write something new. If it's just a hack on a hack on a hack on a hack then no wonder it's shit. It's funny that often it's quicker to rewrite than force your way through.
I'm worried that with LLMs and vibe coding on the rise we're just going to get more. Because people will be asking "how do I make X do Y" when in reality you shouldn't ever make X do Y, you need to find a different tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typst doesn't (yet) have one of the features that make LaTex stand out: microtypography. See https://github.com/typst/typst/issues/4693
Didn't work with Unicode the last time I checked... Would much rather have Unicode support than microtype.
What doesn't work?
Typst is the modern LaTeX. https://typst.app/
For all the well-deserved complaints about TeX's and LaTeX's syntax, Typst only makes this worse , by repurposing even more characters as markup.