13 ms·

Typst is the most important open source project of the last 5 years. I predict a future where markdown and latex are largely replaced by typst. And I couldn't

Typst is the most important open source project of the last 5 years. I predict a future where markdown and latex are largely replaced by typst. And I couldn't be more excited. It is such a stepup from markdown and latex. Try it today if you are intrigued.

mastermage 3mo ago
For Latex I agree thats definitely. Markdown I am unsure as Markdown is not meant for creating documents but to just have a little Richt Text Markup in READMEs and other Text files. Typst needs a compile step and altough that one is fast as hell it is still different from Markdown that renders directly from the file without an intermediary.
- adamnemecek 3mo ago
 The problem with markdown is that it's not extensible and that there is no spec. Essentially all READMEs would be better off using typst, they would make for better READMEs.
 - sbysb 3mo ago
 I do not think that is the problem with markdown lol. There are lots of problems with markdown, especially vanilla or the more limited versions of it - but really its super power is that it is readable with a regular text editor (or `cat`) and can be rendered without a compilation step. Markdown is not competing with latex or typst, it is competing with (and has won against) .txt files
 - Certhas 3mo ago
 Actually basic typst is as readable as markdown, e.g. this is the example from the webapp: = The Typst Playground Welcome to the Typst Playground! This is a sandbox where you can experiment with Typst. You can type anywhere in the editor panel on the left. The preview panel to the right will update live. = Basics <basics> Typst is a _markup_ language. You use it to express not just the content, but also the structure and formatting of your document. For example, surrounding a word with underscores _emphasizes_ it with italics and starting a line with an equals sign creates a section heading. Typst has lightweight syntax like this for the most common formatting needs. Among other things, you can use it to: - *Strongly emphasize* some text - Refer to @basics - Typeset math: $a, b in { 1/2, sqrt(4 a b) }$ That's just the surface though! Typst has powerful systems for scripting, styling, introspection, and more. In the realm of a Typst document, there is nothing you can't automate.
 - tlarkworthy 3mo ago
 Of course it's extensible, you can put HTML in it, and HTML is extensible.
 - adamnemecek 3mo ago
 That is like saying "Ruby is not slow, you can write native extensions in C". No, Markdown is not extensible.
 - tlarkworthy 3mo ago
 Ruby is extensible as well, these things flourish because their creators thought hard about escape hatches. The things that are not extensible we don't talk about because they already died.
 - josephg 3mo ago
 But you can't abstract. I can't make a custom template for an image + caption, and use it throughout my markdown document. You can do some pretty wild stuff with html. But if you do, you get an unreadable jumble of markdown and HTML. It loses the single advantage of markdown - which is that its human readable as a text file.
 - tlarkworthy 3mo ago
 HTML is human readable as a text file. It does lack abstraction though. I don't actually like markdown much but it is quicker for prose and when I want my images styled a certain way I drop to HTML
 josephg 3mo ago
 > HTML is human readable as a text file. It's horrible to read compared to markdown and typst. Some cool sentence in html! Some cool *sentence* in **markdown!**
 - mastermage 3mo ago
 As I said in a previous comment typst especialy with extending via scripting stops being plain text readable. A Markdown file (whatever flavor it may be) is still fundamentaly one vi,nano, Editor, Notepad++ away from being read with all its context included. It is a tradeoff that for READMES I would not want to make.
 - cycomanic 3mo ago
 If you restrict typat to the basic functionally of markdown it is just as readable as plain text (not surprising considering that typat syntax was inspirered by markdown). However, once we include more unusual things I would argue that markdown becomes more illegible than typst (as for markdown you start adding html essentially).
 - applicative 3mo ago
 There have been theoretically precise published specs for serious markdowns for 15 years. The commonmark convention is a common specification for many including e.g the familiar simple github variant, which emphatically does have a completely perfect specification.
 - harshreality 3mo ago
 Commonmark isn't serious because it doesn't include several major quality of life improvements like [^1] for footnote/reference syntax. Pandoc should be the serious "common" markdown standard.
 - applicative 3mo ago
 It is perfectly serious, though hobbled by various recalcitrant forces. For example, if I write using only ye olde original markdown devices, pandoc will render as it would commonmark. The core commonmark idea is to have an unambiguous specification of /the original syntax/ -- which emphatically didnt exist: the perl regex script was the only actual specification. Part of the problem is that people want to say 'markdown' but John Gruber, pissing on the corpse of Aaron Schwarz, falsely claims total possession of everything that comes under that head, and that there must be no independent specification. This simple fact totally destroys the entire milieu. 80% of complaints about 'markdown' are due to his recalcitrance. Thus there can be no spec, no spec specifying extensions, etc. He does not want anything like html to be defined as he will lose ... I'm not sure what, since he is deeply evil, as this one case shows with total clarity. Industrial interests would be enough to get an html-like convention if it were otherwise.
- josephg 3mo ago
 Right; but markdown has expanded beyond that niche. Lots of projects use markdown for other stuff - like mdbook, or for blogs. I think markdown is a great format for readme files. But for real documentation, the added features of typst are fantastic. Like, being able to write scripts, have figures and custom styling, populate data from JSON files, plugins, typography, numbered sections, footnotes and all sorts of other stuff. Markdown doesn't even support comments properly! I want typst for blogging, long form articles and documentation. Markdown is great for small stuff. But it doesn't scale.
 - mastermage 3mo ago
 Fascinating Ideas I love hearing opinions on this, it enriches me. I do belive that atleast simple files like for example READMEs will stay and perhaps are better to stay as Markdown. One advantage that has is that while scripting is cool, It make the document not plain text readable which is a tradeoff one can argue.
 - josephg 3mo ago
 Yes, I agree. But not all technical writing is README files. For books and long form articles, markdown simply isn't powerful enough. And for stuff like this, nobody cares whether or not the source is readable as plain text.
 - applicative 3mo ago
 Ordinary markdowns have had /everything/ you mention for close to 20 years, except typesetting. Academic papers and books, novels, thousands of ebooks, have been written in single file markdowns for 15 years. Writing directly in typst is good for small things with intense typesetting like ... wedding invitations, advertisements. But it doesn't scale to serious composition by actual writers. Writing is not typesetting. All the forms need for the composition of all civilized text were present in word perfect 5.1, which unlike Word, Latex and Typst, permitted no typsetting during the process of writing. They were all recovered in the writers' markdowns nearly two decades ago.
 - 3mo ago
utopiah 3mo ago
I'm not sure either matter to be honest. It's cool sure, powerful also... but when anybody has access to both vector-based editor and raster-based editor ... but also tools that incorporate them, e.g. rich text editors ... but also entire toolchain going from compilers to libraries all the way to Web based notebook with their editors and running environment that can then output printable artifacts, I don't think there has to be "the" way. They might be a more popular way within a certain zeitgeist but... does one project has to "replace" another one? I guess I don't really get the passion some people have for "perfect" rendering. I'm fine with just text, then just readible equations below it, then an OK looking graph. I don't actually care if any of those are pixel perfect. I don't get it. IMHO in terms of actual knowledge transmission reproducibility and interactivity are way more important. They might not look as good and in fact introduce a TON of complexity but I believe it's better than yet another system that is slightly better looking while being slightly easier, for those people with a specific mindset, to setup and use. PS: still both Gribouille and Typst are cool projects! Just want to make sure I'm not sounding critical against those efforts.
- adamnemecek 3mo ago
  > It's cool sure, powerful also... but when anybody has access to both vector-based editor and raster-based editor ... but also tools that incorporate them, e.g. rich text editors ... but also entire toolchain going from compilers to libraries all the way to Web based notebook with their editors and running environment that can then output printable artifacts, I don't think there has to be "the" way. They might be a more popular way within a certain zeitgeist but... does one project has to "replace" another one? cool, why do you think people use tikz? And like generating images programmatically from text is impossibly more powerful than using vector editors.
- zhshnsnnaaka 3mo ago
  I agree but to me it seems humanity has a terminal case of being unable to separate content from presentation. I can see it in this thread with clamoring for Typst in READMEs etc. If READMEs need to be anything they need to be plain bloody text. Markdown is the absolute maximum. Having some “header semantics” defined is fine as that’s universal in a document but let’s keep it simple guys, OK? Information needs to be plain and clear. Presentation can be fancy. Let’s keep these very, very different things separate. AI will thank you as well.
red_admiral 3mo ago
Markdown and Typst serve different markets - I don't need page layouts and font choices in a pull request, for example. Typst is however a good Markdown++ in that once a collection of markdown files grows to book size, it's easy enough to port. Typst challenging TeX would be my dream too - there's a lot of math you can port just be leaving off the backslashes. Mind you the kids these days know TeX primarily as "that language in overleaf".
sieve 3mo ago
I like typst. But I am not a fan of the syntax. I use it as an intermediate format on the way to PDF. A document markup language should avoid building a programming language inside it. Pick python, or lua, or whatever.
cryo32 3mo ago
Not so sure. I work with a lot of people in academia who work with LaTeX. I haven't met anyone who knows Typst even exists. And the source material is usually just thrown in Word or LibreOffice. The problem is also momentum. Do you rewrite 30 years' of CTAN contributions, internal templates/styles and the toolchain off and start again or not? There's not much reason to. And you will hit the same brick walls doing so that you hit with TeX the first time round. If it is a greenfield, possibly, but all the orgs I've seen using LaTeX have been using TeX since the dawn of time and respect the accumulated knowledge rather than the distraction of a new tool.
- vatsachak 3mo ago
  Academia is stuck in the past in a lot of ways.
  - cryo32 3mo ago
    I prefer to think of it as mature.
  - esafak 3mo ago
    Just use it and advertise it; they'll catch on eventually.
- lkm0 3mo ago
  > accumulated knowledge my experience is the opposite. Due to LaTeX's arcane scripting and the lack of interest people have in learning it beyond "it compiles on overleaf", I'm seeing a lot of accumulated superstition. People copying and pasting preambles with useless packages, unused newcommands. Worse, people sometimes use their group's newcommands without being aware of the native functions, e.g. \beginmymatrix replacing \begin{pmatrix}. Even if change is slow, any amount of Typst adoption is good.
  - cryo32 3mo ago
    If it's any consolation we use native stuff including pmatrix :). In fact most of our typesetting is very very plain LaTeX.
aloisdg 3mo ago
Markdown is already seen as arcane by non technical folks. Which is sad btw. Typst is not going to replace it. That said I was not a huge latex user and nowadays I use typst a lot. Typst is everything I was expected from latex. The content is in markdown and loaded by typst with cmarker
eikenberry 3mo ago
How is it an step-up from markdown? Markdown (w/o any embedded html) is a simple text formatting that lets you read it as a plain text file with some minor formatting when rendered. Typst source files are not human readable in the same way and would be terrible at it. Typst is great when you need typesetting, but if you just want plain text, readable files it isn't it. E.g. markdown for notes, typst for papers.
- Diti 3mo ago
  Anything is a step-up for Markdown, unless you include HTML in your Markdown. The base features of AsciiDoc (or Org-mode) are alike to Markdown in terms of simplicity (no typesetting).
- fourthark 3mo ago
  It's intended to be a markdown with code. So it has nesting and scopes and code/math modes in with the markdown. Idk, I find it mind-bending but quite readable.

mastermage 3mo ago

For Latex I agree thats definitely. Markdown I am unsure as Markdown is not meant for creating documents but to just have a little Richt Text Markup in READMEs and other Text files. Typst needs a compile step and altough that one is fast as hell it is still different from Markdown that renders directly from the file without an intermediary.

adamnemecek 3mo ago
The problem with markdown is that it's not extensible and that there is no spec. Essentially all READMEs would be better off using typst, they would make for better READMEs.
- sbysb 3mo ago
 I do not think that is the problem with markdown lol. There are lots of problems with markdown, especially vanilla or the more limited versions of it - but really its super power is that it is readable with a regular text editor (or `cat`) and can be rendered without a compilation step. Markdown is not competing with latex or typst, it is competing with (and has won against) .txt files
 - Certhas 3mo ago
 Actually basic typst is as readable as markdown, e.g. this is the example from the webapp: = The Typst Playground Welcome to the Typst Playground! This is a sandbox where you can experiment with Typst. You can type anywhere in the editor panel on the left. The preview panel to the right will update live. = Basics <basics> Typst is a _markup_ language. You use it to express not just the content, but also the structure and formatting of your document. For example, surrounding a word with underscores _emphasizes_ it with italics and starting a line with an equals sign creates a section heading. Typst has lightweight syntax like this for the most common formatting needs. Among other things, you can use it to: - *Strongly emphasize* some text - Refer to @basics - Typeset math: $a, b in { 1/2, sqrt(4 a b) }$ That's just the surface though! Typst has powerful systems for scripting, styling, introspection, and more. In the realm of a Typst document, there is nothing you can't automate.
- tlarkworthy 3mo ago
 Of course it's extensible, you can put HTML in it, and HTML is extensible.
 - adamnemecek 3mo ago
 That is like saying "Ruby is not slow, you can write native extensions in C". No, Markdown is not extensible.
 - tlarkworthy 3mo ago
 Ruby is extensible as well, these things flourish because their creators thought hard about escape hatches. The things that are not extensible we don't talk about because they already died.
 - josephg 3mo ago
 But you can't abstract. I can't make a custom template for an image + caption, and use it throughout my markdown document. You can do some pretty wild stuff with html. But if you do, you get an unreadable jumble of markdown and HTML. It loses the single advantage of markdown - which is that its human readable as a text file.
 - tlarkworthy 3mo ago
 HTML is human readable as a text file. It does lack abstraction though. I don't actually like markdown much but it is quicker for prose and when I want my images styled a certain way I drop to HTML
 - josephg 3mo ago
 > HTML is human readable as a text file. It's horrible to read compared to markdown and typst. Some cool sentence in html! Some cool *sentence* in **markdown!**
- mastermage 3mo ago
 As I said in a previous comment typst especialy with extending via scripting stops being plain text readable. A Markdown file (whatever flavor it may be) is still fundamentaly one vi,nano, Editor, Notepad++ away from being read with all its context included. It is a tradeoff that for READMES I would not want to make.
 - cycomanic 3mo ago
 If you restrict typat to the basic functionally of markdown it is just as readable as plain text (not surprising considering that typat syntax was inspirered by markdown). However, once we include more unusual things I would argue that markdown becomes more illegible than typst (as for markdown you start adding html essentially).
- applicative 3mo ago
 There have been theoretically precise published specs for serious markdowns for 15 years. The commonmark convention is a common specification for many including e.g the familiar simple github variant, which emphatically does have a completely perfect specification.
 - harshreality 3mo ago
 Commonmark isn't serious because it doesn't include several major quality of life improvements like [^1] for footnote/reference syntax. Pandoc should be the serious "common" markdown standard.
 - applicative 3mo ago
 It is perfectly serious, though hobbled by various recalcitrant forces. For example, if I write using only ye olde original markdown devices, pandoc will render as it would commonmark. The core commonmark idea is to have an unambiguous specification of /the original syntax/ -- which emphatically didnt exist: the perl regex script was the only actual specification. Part of the problem is that people want to say 'markdown' but John Gruber, pissing on the corpse of Aaron Schwarz, falsely claims total possession of everything that comes under that head, and that there must be no independent specification. This simple fact totally destroys the entire milieu. 80% of complaints about 'markdown' are due to his recalcitrance. Thus there can be no spec, no spec specifying extensions, etc. He does not want anything like html to be defined as he will lose ... I'm not sure what, since he is deeply evil, as this one case shows with total clarity. Industrial interests would be enough to get an html-like convention if it were otherwise.
josephg 3mo ago
Right; but markdown has expanded beyond that niche. Lots of projects use markdown for other stuff - like mdbook, or for blogs. I think markdown is a great format for readme files. But for real documentation, the added features of typst are fantastic. Like, being able to write scripts, have figures and custom styling, populate data from JSON files, plugins, typography, numbered sections, footnotes and all sorts of other stuff. Markdown doesn't even support comments properly! I want typst for blogging, long form articles and documentation. Markdown is great for small stuff. But it doesn't scale.
- mastermage 3mo ago
  Fascinating Ideas I love hearing opinions on this, it enriches me. I do belive that atleast simple files like for example READMEs will stay and perhaps are better to stay as Markdown. One advantage that has is that while scripting is cool, It make the document not plain text readable which is a tradeoff one can argue.
  - josephg 3mo ago
    Yes, I agree. But not all technical writing is README files. For books and long form articles, markdown simply isn't powerful enough. And for stuff like this, nobody cares whether or not the source is readable as plain text.
- applicative 3mo ago
  Ordinary markdowns have had /everything/ you mention for close to 20 years, except typesetting. Academic papers and books, novels, thousands of ebooks, have been written in single file markdowns for 15 years. Writing directly in typst is good for small things with intense typesetting like ... wedding invitations, advertisements. But it doesn't scale to serious composition by actual writers. Writing is not typesetting. All the forms need for the composition of all civilized text were present in word perfect 5.1, which unlike Word, Latex and Typst, permitted no typsetting during the process of writing. They were all recovered in the writers' markdowns nearly two decades ago.
  - 3mo ago

utopiah 3mo ago

I'm not sure either matter to be honest. It's cool sure, powerful also... but when anybody has access to both vector-based editor and raster-based editor ... but also tools that incorporate them, e.g. rich text editors ... but also entire toolchain going from compilers to libraries all the way to Web based notebook with their editors and running environment that can then output printable artifacts, I don't think there has to be "the" way. They might be a more popular way within a certain zeitgeist but... does one project has to "replace" another one? I guess I don't really get the passion some people have for "perfect" rendering. I'm fine with just text, then just readible equations below it, then an OK looking graph. I don't actually care if any of those are pixel perfect. I don't get it. IMHO in terms of actual knowledge transmission reproducibility and interactivity are way more important. They might not look as good and in fact introduce a TON of complexity but I believe it's better than yet another system that is slightly better looking while being slightly easier, for those people with a specific mindset, to setup and use. PS: still both Gribouille and Typst are cool projects! Just want to make sure I'm not sounding critical against those efforts.

adamnemecek 3mo ago
> It's cool sure, powerful also... but when anybody has access to both vector-based editor and raster-based editor ... but also tools that incorporate them, e.g. rich text editors ... but also entire toolchain going from compilers to libraries all the way to Web based notebook with their editors and running environment that can then output printable artifacts, I don't think there has to be "the" way. They might be a more popular way within a certain zeitgeist but... does one project has to "replace" another one? cool, why do you think people use tikz? And like generating images programmatically from text is impossibly more powerful than using vector editors.
zhshnsnnaaka 3mo ago
I agree but to me it seems humanity has a terminal case of being unable to separate content from presentation. I can see it in this thread with clamoring for Typst in READMEs etc. If READMEs need to be anything they need to be plain bloody text. Markdown is the absolute maximum. Having some “header semantics” defined is fine as that’s universal in a document but let’s keep it simple guys, OK? Information needs to be plain and clear. Presentation can be fancy. Let’s keep these very, very different things separate. AI will thank you as well.

red_admiral 3mo ago

Markdown and Typst serve different markets - I don't need page layouts and font choices in a pull request, for example. Typst is however a good Markdown++ in that once a collection of markdown files grows to book size, it's easy enough to port. Typst challenging TeX would be my dream too - there's a lot of math you can port just be leaving off the backslashes. Mind you the kids these days know TeX primarily as "that language in overleaf".

sieve 3mo ago

I like typst. But I am not a fan of the syntax. I use it as an intermediate format on the way to PDF. A document markup language should avoid building a programming language inside it. Pick python, or lua, or whatever.

cryo32 3mo ago

Not so sure. I work with a lot of people in academia who work with LaTeX. I haven't met anyone who knows Typst even exists. And the source material is usually just thrown in Word or LibreOffice. The problem is also momentum. Do you rewrite 30 years' of CTAN contributions, internal templates/styles and the toolchain off and start again or not? There's not much reason to. And you will hit the same brick walls doing so that you hit with TeX the first time round. If it is a greenfield, possibly, but all the orgs I've seen using LaTeX have been using TeX since the dawn of time and respect the accumulated knowledge rather than the distraction of a new tool.

vatsachak 3mo ago
Academia is stuck in the past in a lot of ways.
- cryo32 3mo ago
  I prefer to think of it as mature.
- esafak 3mo ago
  Just use it and advertise it; they'll catch on eventually.
lkm0 3mo ago
> accumulated knowledge my experience is the opposite. Due to LaTeX's arcane scripting and the lack of interest people have in learning it beyond "it compiles on overleaf", I'm seeing a lot of accumulated superstition. People copying and pasting preambles with useless packages, unused newcommands. Worse, people sometimes use their group's newcommands without being aware of the native functions, e.g. \beginmymatrix replacing \begin{pmatrix}. Even if change is slow, any amount of Typst adoption is good.
- cryo32 3mo ago
  If it's any consolation we use native stuff including pmatrix :). In fact most of our typesetting is very very plain LaTeX.

aloisdg 3mo ago

Markdown is already seen as arcane by non technical folks. Which is sad btw. Typst is not going to replace it. That said I was not a huge latex user and nowadays I use typst a lot. Typst is everything I was expected from latex. The content is in markdown and loaded by typst with cmarker

eikenberry 3mo ago

How is it an step-up from markdown? Markdown (w/o any embedded html) is a simple text formatting that lets you read it as a plain text file with some minor formatting when rendered. Typst source files are not human readable in the same way and would be terrible at it. Typst is great when you need typesetting, but if you just want plain text, readable files it isn't it. E.g. markdown for notes, typst for papers.

Diti 3mo ago
Anything is a step-up for Markdown, unless you include HTML in your Markdown. The base features of AsciiDoc (or Org-mode) are alike to Markdown in terms of simplicity (no typesetting).
fourthark 3mo ago
It's intended to be a markdown with code. So it has nesting and scopes and code/math modes in with the markdown. Idk, I find it mind-bending but quite readable.