I tried it, and it's already impressive for neither requiring a login page nor having ad-nonsense. I wish more web apps were like that.
Typst 0.14
11–20 of 171 posts
Re: Typst 0.14
#12Really great work. Typst continues to impress. The eventual goal of HTML and PDF both as first class output will be a such a great improvement for scientific publishing. For everyone who is using LaTeX and hasn't tried yet, give it a try. It is actually surprisingly featurefull and surpasses LaTeX in usability by a huge margin.
It sounds like it takes up a similar niche as PanDoc. Is there any particular feature that Typst is better at or is it mostly about ease of use? (I remember Pandoc to be quite nice to use for simple use cases while also allowing the full set of latex stuff when needed) https://pandoc.org/
These are different categories of software.
Typst is a way to define a document. Headers, paragraphs, figures, equations, tables, etc. it is a direct competitor to LaTeX and maybe in some ways similar to Word, which provides a GUI for an XML defined document.
Pandoc is a converter, which given a document in one document description language outputs a document in another document description language.
What is exciting about Typst HTML support is that its goal is that it has first class support for both PDF and HTMl, which is obviously preferable to something like pandoc, which always has to rely on an intermediate representation of the document, before a conversion can happen.
Re: Typst 0.14
#13Really great work. Typst continues to impress. The eventual goal of HTML and PDF both as first class output will be a such a great improvement for scientific publishing. For everyone who is using LaTeX and hasn't tried yet, give it a try. It is actually surprisingly featurefull and surpasses LaTeX in usability by a huge margin.
It sounds like it takes up a similar niche as PanDoc. Is there any particular feature that Typst is better at or is it mostly about ease of use? (I remember Pandoc to be quite nice to use for simple use cases while also allowing the full set of latex stuff when needed) https://pandoc.org/
In addition to what the other commentors write, an advantage of Typst is that it is self-contained:
You just need one (large) executable to do everything, whereas with PanDoc you (by default) need to have LaTeX installed if you want to generate PDFs
Re: Typst 0.14
#14I think I'm going to subscribe without any intention of using the app just as a "financing" donation. I love, and hate, LaTeX and the idea of a LaTeX successor / alternative is incredibly appealing. And the fact that they are aware that microtypography IS important and that they are working on it is a huge huge plus.
LaTex is not too bad but it's hard to cook properly. My personal pain point with LaTex is that it depends so much on environment where it runs.
Re: Typst 0.14
#15Really great work. Typst continues to impress. The eventual goal of HTML and PDF both as first class output will be a such a great improvement for scientific publishing. For everyone who is using LaTeX and hasn't tried yet, give it a try. It is actually surprisingly featurefull and surpasses LaTeX in usability by a huge margin.
It sounds like it takes up a similar niche as PanDoc. Is there any particular feature that Typst is better at or is it mostly about ease of use? (I remember Pandoc to be quite nice to use for simple use cases while also allowing the full set of latex stuff when needed) https://pandoc.org/
PanDoc has Typst as an output format, so it should be possible to just keep using PanDoc Markdown (for instance) and just switch to Typst output if that is (or becomes) better than LaTeX.
Re: Typst 0.14
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like it takes up a similar niche as PanDoc. Is there any particular feature that Typst is better at or is it mostly about ease of use? (I remember Pandoc to be quite nice to use for simple use cases while also allowing the full set of latex stuff when needed) https://pandoc.org/
These are different categories of software. Typst is a way to define a document. Headers, paragraphs, figures, equations, tables, etc. it is a direct competitor to LaTeX and maybe in some ways similar to Word, which provides a GUI for an XML defined document. Pandoc is a converter, which given a document in one document description language outputs a document in another document description language. What is exciting…
PanDoc has its own version of Markdown that (more or less?) maps 1:1 to the intermediate representation in PanDoc, plus allows embedding other formats when necessary, or conditionally include some content only for some output formats.
It's a great format to use for editing, since it converts so well to all the other formats (including Typst?).
Re: Typst 0.14
#17> Meanwhile, in HTML and SVG export, PDFs are converted to an embedded SVG on-the-fly. And, finally, in PNG export and the web app preview, PDFs are rasterized. All of this PDF processing functionality lives right in the Typst compiler, with no system dependencies. This is only possible thanks to the amazing work of community member @LaurenzV, who created a new PDF processing library called hayro from scratch. The library is 100% written in the programming language Rust (which is also the language we use for the Typst compiler) and is thus highly portable.
Wow! That must’ve been quite an effort.
Re: Typst 0.14
#18Kinda wonder how accessible the online editor is? I should try it, see if VS Code is a linter or something for it, although there is the compiler.
Re: Typst 0.14
#19Really great work. Typst continues to impress. The eventual goal of HTML and PDF both as first class output will be a such a great improvement for scientific publishing. For everyone who is using LaTeX and hasn't tried yet, give it a try. It is actually surprisingly featurefull and surpasses LaTeX in usability by a huge margin.
It sounds like it takes up a similar niche as PanDoc. Is there any particular feature that Typst is better at or is it mostly about ease of use? (I remember Pandoc to be quite nice to use for simple use cases while also allowing the full set of latex stuff when needed) https://pandoc.org/
If you are just creating a simple document with default styling, the main advantage you get from Typst is near-instant compilation speed. Pandoc to HTML is similar though, but if you’re generating PDFs with LaTeX the compilation delays can be pretty annoying.
If you are creating more complex documents, the advantages become more pronounced. Styling in Pandoc means modifying templates, at which point you’re just writing LaTeX, and styling in Typst is much nicer than in LaTeX. You can also hit the limits of Pandoc templates quite easily, at which point you have to write Lua filters. I have found those to be quite cumbersome, and now your document logic is spread out over the Markdown source file, the LaTeX template, and the Lua filters. In Typst you can have a single file with your whole document in a clean modern format, and you can decide for yourself how much you want to separate content and presentation.
Re: Typst 0.14
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are different categories of software. Typst is a way to define a document. Headers, paragraphs, figures, equations, tables, etc. it is a direct competitor to LaTeX and maybe in some ways similar to Word, which provides a GUI for an XML defined document. Pandoc is a converter, which given a document in one document description language outputs a document in another document description language. What is exciting…
PanDoc has its own version of Markdown that (more or less?) maps 1:1 to the intermediate representation in PanDoc, plus allows embedding other formats when necessary, or conditionally include some content only for some output formats. It's a great format to use for editing, since it converts so well to all the other formats (including Typst?). https://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html#pandocs-markdown
>PanDoc has its own version of Markdown that (more or less?) maps 1:1 to the intermediate representation in PanDoc
Which is bad if you want a complex document, since the intermediate representation of pandoc can not represent all typst features.
Also, I do not understand what your argument is. Pandoc and typst are not competing, they are different pieces of software with different goals. Pandocs markdown is also not competing with typst, since they are completely different ways to define a document. Typst is vastly more complex, it even includes its own scripting language. Pandoc also doesn't output PDF, except by calling some external tool, which then compiles a pandoc output format to HTML. It is fundamentally different to typst.