The widespread opposition to flock is unfortunately an aberration. The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance, and I think a rebrand has a good chance of working. They'll give it a try either way.
In a poll of "do you want to be surveilled", "do you think mass surveillance is good", sure. But in terms of revealed preferences, people will happily give up privacy for mild convenience.
What's really true is that people are, 99% of the time, not actually given that choice. For "revealed preferences theory" to work, the people involved would need to consistently have a free choice between two options. And for people who have had their finances gradually stretched and stretched over the past 40 years of growing inequality, "cheaper but worse" is not a free choice.
People can choose Facebook or to get in contact with people individually via phone, email or visits, but they prefer Facebook because it's more convenient to put a message there and count as maintenance of a group of relationships. People can choose between accepting the cameras or participating in the democracy they belong in and protest and pressure their representatives, but it's more convenient to accept.
It's true there are people without choice, but most people aren't without choice, and they choose convenience.
This is a specious argument because it neglects to take into account information asymmetries and change over time. When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection and its downstream implications.
People initially chose Facebook because it truly offered a novel and improved service, and the true cost users would pay for it wasn't obvious to anyone yet. The "wall", chronological friends-only feeds, etc. provided genuine value, and at that point the public at large were almost completely oblivious to how much personal data was being collected from them (and even less as to how it might be used in ways counter to their own interests). Once they'd fully captured the vast majority of user share, Facebook clawed back value by deprecating the chronological feed, serving ads and "high-engagement" posts in place of friend submissions, and generally ramped up their data harvesting significantly further since.
Most people would agree that the service is far worse than what they initially signed up for, but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about.
Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively. They're effectively held hostage by network effects that were intentionally planned and designed around producing that lock-in effect and guaranteeing that all potential alternatives either withered on the vine or were absorbed (e.g. Instagram). To the extent there's a "choice," it's a coerced choice on purpose.
> When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection
Come on, you're trying to tell me that people didn't understand that when they give someone a thing, that someone has the thing they gave them?
> provided genuine value
Yes, the convenience.
> how much personal data was being collected from them
"They collected it; I didn't give it to them."
> but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about.
Yes, "the pesky convenience is forcing me."
> Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively.
"My friends and family are forcing me."
Despite my comments, I'm not totally against the use of Facebook, but I am against the surrender of personal agency and blame-shifting these comments are demonstrating.
It's true they collect more, but I wouldn't say "far, far more". They get the most from what you provide yourself. That's unless you have relationships that share too much about you.
Did they stop tracking people through their like buttons by now? If not, there's no argument - they're literally tracking non-users on every site they can! Besides Google, what company is doing as much tracking as much as Facebook?
Wasn't it just last year that it became known how Facebook and Instagram apps track your browsing through WebRTC? That alone is far far more than people knowingly give them.
Learning about their tracking web browsing through WebRTC ports from the apps, you have a point on users not knowingly providing that. Still, if you dissociate from Facebook (not having their apps, not being logged on, etc.) then that tracking would've been ineffective. The rest of my comment stands on their being able to leave it.
The world when Facebook was introduced: "Oh well, I guess I have no choice. There's nothing like Facebook, so I'm forced to upload my family photos to these people. I'm not responsible for doing that. Let me just find somebody to blame, maybe the family that's already using it? Nevermind that there are alternatives for keeping in touch. We don't talk about that. They're just not as convenient, so they're obsolete."
You do know that there were over a dozen social media networks that facebook bought over and effectively extinguished or merged into their behemoth right ? They deliberately ensured that choices were extremely limited. Any "alternative" that got popular and not under control of another behemoth was effectively taken over or killed. So your "use an alternative" logic just does not compute.
Eh I think it depends on the country a lot too. The average UK citizen? Probably. Even as someone from abroad, I know the British are widely stereotyped as having cameras everywhere.
But Americans are raised from birth with the idea of “freedom” and a camera pointed at you recording your every move is antithetical to that. They somewhat tolerate it in private establishments like malls and restaurants but not in public spaces.
Axon, formerly known as TASER did a reputational name change. Worth mentioning that they are also a flock competitor, but they are not in the headlines anymore.
They did such an amazingly bad job on their PR. Their best known products literally exist to keep police from killing people or violating their rights undetected, and instead of meeting the moment and explaining why their products should become mandatory, always-on, permanent replacements for firearms or ADVOKATE-style sworn statements they just kind of... pretended that misuse of their products was WAI and ate the consequences of that.
Those departments buy their products. If they took that angle publicly I bet many departments would suddenly been much less interested in buying/renewing. Accountability seems to be super unpopular (which says A LOT) with their customers.
I get it, but I also just don't understand why they couldn't effectively explain to the police that they were a for-profit company. The police definitely understand that!
Like, when the police were saying "we can't turn on body cameras all the time because it might violate victims rights" the correct response from axon was "we also happen to sell a very expensive victim redaction software on a separate SKU, until you buy that probably just want to let your officers use discretion wink-nod."
(I am maybe unfairly assuming here that their actual intent was to make money rather than protect the public from police abuses. I'd love to hear from folks at Axon if that isn't true!)
They could have just talked out of both sides of their mouths. Tell the public it’s to curb abuse, tell the police in private “we all know what it’s really for” wink-wink-nudge-nudge.
Maybe offer up a few token cases where they caught abuse and the cop got in trouble or something changed as proof.
Nope. You’re right, they ran right into that wall.
I think that's why they are going to create many subsidiaries with a lot of different brand names. Until those names can't "spread" anymore, because it's too many different names and they often change.
reminds me that macOS could really use something like powershell (I know you can run powershell on macOS) where you pass around structured data, rather than the endless parsing and reparsing. This is mostly a feature of the shell but you do need some language infrastructure to accomplish it.
To me the secret sauce behind powershell is the .NET infrastructure, which allows much more runtime introspection than the usual compiled programming languages, allowing a lot of flexibility without being too wonky. Unfortunately the Windows team seemed to not be on board with this vision, and thus it cannot achieve its full potential. The objective-c runtime may have been a good alternative here too, but I don't think Apple is encouraging its use anymore (and Objective-C is not the right language for that, neither is AppleScript imo).
You can also access COM from PowerShell, which basically opens up a lot of the Windows world to it.
And both .NET and COM and the object-oriented history of Windows is probably also why PowerShell will never really feel "at home" on UNIX platforms, for better or worse.
I was a big fan of Nushell for some time but has the same problems as unix shells. I have this CLI tool that manages a lot of things for me (a big one is downloading and cataloging arxiv papers, it downloads them and tags them with metadata and gives each PDF a proper filename based on the author's name and publication year). I tried building this in Nushell but it became eventually so painful.
It's both curse and blessing. Of course it gives you ultimate freedom, but like with programming languages, I personally prefer the guardrails that a type system provides.
It pairs quite nicely with agentic development as it has a history of plenty of open-source projects published on GitHub, which means they have learned to work with Rails et al. rather well.
It also helps to have a "boring" framework with strong opinions and strong community standards etc.
I wouldn't claim it to be the best as I'm not sure how you'd measure that, but I can say that in my experience it is letting me build things to a decent standard really rather quickly.
If you're building something new today, I'd generally recommend starting with a framework that you already know. But for those of us who already know Rails, it continues to be a wonderful choice. I'm playing with Phoenix LiveView for some projects, which is letting me build real-time UI's really easily – but they have some real-time requirements which Rails can do but is not it's strength. For anything a little more CRUD, it's a no-brainer.
For languages, I'd say Gleam and OxCaml are going to become more and more popular on here. Not sure what else.
In the industry, Ruby often (but not always) pairs with Rails. Ruby+Rails exists in a sweet spot of making most of the mundane bullshit of writing software vanish, you spend 80% of your time thinking about your business problem, and that was before LLMs. With LLMs, you can get a lot done.
It wouldn't surprise me if AI economics act as a forcing function for more Ruby adoption.
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.
I'm in academia and used to use LaTeX for everything, and have switched almost 100% to typst. Not many of my colleagues are aware of typst but a few use it.
I think there is hope though. Grad students are slowly picking it up, and they are the future of academia. I've seen similar transitions away from Fortran and Matlab as grad students embrace different tools than what their advisors use.
Yes, I am a graduate student majoring in mathematics, and my classmates and I strongly hate tikz, especially when drawing relatively complex diagrams like TQFT. But we discovered cetz, and we really love it
As for ordinary formula input, we usually already have our preferred snippets, so tpyst doesn’t offer much advantage. But for drawing figures, typst is really incredibly powerful
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.
> I haven't met anyone who knows Typst even exists.
It was released in 2023 and became polished enough to use like last year. Yeah, adoption takes time but the technology is significantly better.
> 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?
With latex you have to rely on third party. With typst you can write it yourself (or with an agent), like writing functions is not painful in typst.
I’m in academia and I try to convert everyone I know… I only recently started using it for a few things, and I used Claude to do some pretty advanced stuff that I wouldn’t have ventured to even try with latex. That is, I think a lot of the relevant CTAN packages can be developed using LLMs more quickly than you might expect.
For next year, I plan to prepare a thesis template for our university and encourage students to try it instead of latex (most of our students use latex now).
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.
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.
I agree with that, that's why I am starting with plain syntax first in https://zero.practal.com, because that is really where all the information/logic lives. But there will also be a presentation layer on top of that, building on the information layer, so with time, I would expect it also to subsume much latex/typst functionality. The "header semantics" I already copied from Markdown.
I cannot tell the future of typst and gribouille, but for:
> 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.
what you describe is fine for a readme or a blog post, but for books, scientific articles, or any long format, having a good layout and typography will totally impact the end result
> 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.
If you've ever debugged TeX package conflicts because someone wants "that layout, except with those headers and this font", yes the whole stack needs replacing with something that does not hold all its state in global variables and has a sensible scripting language (LuaTeX never really took off).
Typesetting isn't just for science. I like that it looks good; I enjoy the creative step of experimenting with document design; and Typst is just fun to use.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you mean. Markdown compared to typst or latex is extremely limited and using it for books or academic papers is very niche. I certainly would (and have for all my previous publications) prefer typst or latex over markdown. I also don't understand your point about not permitting typesetting during writing. Latex and text are the prime examples of separating writing from typesetting.
As an experiment, I recommend to you to put a markdown file into google translate and make pdf via your preferred markdown parser. Now make the corresponding typst document, put it through google translate and enjoy compilation hell.
It isn't niche. I'm an academic writer and there are thousands like me. Like all typst commentators on this site, you have literally just made something up. As for books, you could hardly be more wrong -- /thousands/ of self-published epubs on Amazon are written in absolutely nothing but markdown of one of the specialized varieties. The familiar markdown parsers know how to write out an epub. Self-publishing writers of all sorts have been principal participants of the lists for almost two decades.
I would rather use microsoft word than write in raw typst, which is no different from trying to think in raw latex - even if in some fields it is necessary. I certainly cannot write unless I can output to docx.
A hundred things would be completely impossible to me without a 'lifeless' text format like markdown. The inclusion of a turing complete programming language into document composition - the principal labor distinctive of advanced civilization - is obviously pure insanity, even if it is necessary in the mathematical case. What one needs are ways of introducing the exact features that e.g. wordperfect 5.1 had already completely perfected: paragraphing, sectioning, noting, emphasizing, citing, etc. These are the internal semantic features of actual expression of actual thought, things that must be preserved e.g. by a translator - as sexy typesetting need not be. Considier the question: What is that which must be preserved by a translator? It is the question: What is thought? If I am typing typsetting commands not relevant to this, I am not writing, I am not thinking, I am not constructing a reasoned argument: I am doing high quality page-scale finger painting.
For example, I now consider it intellectual malpractice to give advanced students a translated text for close study, without also supplying the original in parallel. I can do this by simply zipping two markdown files together header to header, paragraph to paragraph with a simple script making html - the original in, say, smaller type narrower column at left margin.
The translation can be changed or an alternative constructed or a new one produced automatically by one of the translation devices. This is an operation that is basically impossible with genuine typesetting, though each md file compiles to pdf e.g. via typst after a markdown->typst process.
This is quite as impossible in typst as it is in latex - huge projects have been devoted to it in latex with complete failure - the necessity of pagination introduces the necessity of precise knowledge of both languages if the page break happens ... in medias sentence - such people e.g. the Loeb library used to have. With html it's a complete picnic, a literal zip operation with a markdown reader -- but of course isn't proper typsetting. The merit is that html is unpaginated. The file for each language itself makes a perfectly sound typst pdf with a keystroke.
How are you doing meaning-aware pagination if you're zipping together markdown columns?
A few minutes of asking an AI and writing a pair of simple typst docs with a few sections of #lorem() paragraphs resulted in what I think your ad-hoc scripting (in what language? add and your custom scripting to your collaborators' publishing stack) efforts do: a typst meta-document that pairs two simpler typst documents, section by section, paragraph by paragraph, each sub-document with its own column width and font size, paginated on paragraph breaks. You might balk at typst's embedded language, but it does avoid added dependencies and external scripting, and the language looks fairly simple a nice and functional.
It might require a somewhat different design to accommodate a marginal-note kind of thing with irregular vertical spacing not paragraph-aligned, but I suspect that's quite possible too, probably with some markup to label notes and align them vertically with corresponding labels in the primary text.
//I'm not doing pagination//, that was my whole point.
My own attempt to put a typst in deepl failed immediately as 'lang:en' when to 'long:en' and it just kept going, five or six failures in a tiny document.
The markdown files never have problems distinct from translation problems, except e.g. with setext headers. There is a reason for this, and it is in fact the reason why the tokenizing world of ai has a secret love of md.
I’ve authored a couple academic articles in typst. At its base, typst is very similar to markdown. You use == for section headers, * for italics and so on. I authored articles in typst just as I would in markdown. Then I do another pass later filling in tables and figures, editing and doing typesetting.
It works great. Maybe not for your needs, but it works great for mine. And I’m keen to try the new html support in typst for blog posts.
Except what you made up was something about markdown and latex, if you look, not something about typst. I gathered you know typst and said not a thing about your cognitions specific to it.
I wish you luck with e.g. automated translation and editing of your typst documents, and look forward to the compile fails when you use 'html support' on these translated files. There are many curiosa with the markdowns but also very very very deep reasons for the uptake, which is only increasing with the AIs.
No, latex does not resemble markdown while authoring. Text ends up intermingled with ugly \sectionheader tags everywhere.
Re: automated translation, you’re projecting your requirements onto me. I can see how automatic translation would be difficult with typst. But, I don’t translate my blog into multiple languages. So that doesn’t matter to me. What does matter is the requirements I listed above - like numbered figures, captions on my images, programmatically generated tables, footnotes and so on.
You repeatedly claimed you can do this stuff with markdown. I don’t believe you.
If they need to do typsetting, as mathematicians in fact do. Mathematics breaks the civilized opposition of content and format, because it involves the invention of symbols on the fly. Reasoning about this is actually quite simple but the typst brigaders have no experience with the history of the topic.
It is universal that the flood of largely automated hackernews typst brigaders cannot make a single post without flatly lying about every other existing instrument. On this site I have never read a single true statement by a typst brigader about latex or markdown, but I have read literally /hundreds/ of lies. If these accounts are real and not bots, the community is fated to die, unfortunately.
I use typst countless times a day, but don't need to lie.
> Ordinary markdowns have had /everything/ you mention for close to 20 years, except typesetting.
Huh? I roll to doubt. How do you do this stuff with markdown? I tried for ages but only got half-baked hacky "markdown extensions" which weren't even commonmark compliant. I've found nothing even remotely as powerful as typst in the markdown world.
I don't know, since I haven't used a form not commonmark compliant since the spec came out. Get back to me when you want to get your typst file translated or in e-reader format.
Typst html support is already available as an experimental feature, so e.g. EPUB probably isn't too much work in addition to that (as I understand it, it's basically zipped HTML with some metadata). It's also in the roadmap: https://typst.app/docs/roadmap/#:~:text=EPUB%20export .
If the translator has access to a service like typst.app, then I don't see too many obstacles for translating. But I don't have any experience on doing translations.
Why would I use a typesetting engine to output an epub or html? They are //by definition not typeset//, but the user e.g. increases font size and rewraps.
Perhaps you would enjoy the rest of the tooling, that may be useful in scientific contexts or in books discussing programming languages. Or perhaps you would also want to publish in PDF, like for an actual print book.
What kind of issues did you expect to encounter in translating Typst documents to other languages?
> 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!
it is plain you want typst or latex and not a markdown or any other so called lightweight markup - and you were lying about footnotes, figures, numbered sections, and depending what you meant, a number of other things.
It completely violates the concept that you are doing 'custom styling', typography ... you might as well add launching missiles, calling a C compiler, etc. Why not use microsoft word? I find markdowns irritating in many ways -- only those are not among them. Why would I want an intellectual document to be in a programming language?
> it is plain you want typst or latex and not a markdown or any other so called lightweight markup
Yes, I've been quite clear on that point. Markdown isn't powerful enough for some of the writing I do.
Upthread you wrote this:
> Ordinary markdowns have had /everything/ you mention for close to 20 years
If this were true, I would have used markdown. If this were true, you would be able to cite a good markdown based tool which had the features I need. You have not.
> you were lying about footnotes, figures, numbered sections, and depending what you meant, a number of other things.
What a strange thing to say. Why would I lie? My needs are quite simple. I want a tool to let me write and publish beautiful essays. (And documentation and the like). Like this:
But markdown isn't powerful enough. For example, I want my diagrams to have captions. And I want to be able to reference to my diagrams from the body - eg "In Diagram 3, ...." and have the diagram in a little box which says "Diagram 3" at the top. And if you click a diagram, it should open a lightbox. I tried a bunch of markdown tooling, but none of it did what I wanted. The bare-bones styling of that webpage is a result of me getting fed up fighting markdown. And I just hit publish.
> It completely violates the concept that you are doing 'custom styling', typography ... you might as well add launching missiles
Bruh what? I want a good authoring tool. Something that lets me write words and render them as a beautiful webpage. Markdown is great for project readmes and things like that. But markdown is a bad tool for the rich, long form essays I want to write. The fact you don't know that isn't evidence that I'm lying. It's just evidence that you're ignorant about the tools I - and others - need to do our jobs.
If you're confused about my tool choice, some curiosity and humility would serve you better than vitriol.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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".
reply