4 ms·

As someone who almost never needs equations, does this have any benefits to me over using markdown?

ksynwa 2y ago
It depends on what you are doing with your markdown files. For example, if you are using them as the source for a statically generated website typst won't do much for you.
PartiallyTyped 2y ago
You have more control over the style and structure. If you use markdown + css, that's a different story.
- crngefest 2y ago
  Yea that is my setup right now. I write markdown and use eleventy + nunjucks templates to build the final result. It’s pretty easy to create new layouts and styles for really any use case with that setup in minutes.
  - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
    If that's the case, I don't think you will get any benefits by switching to Typst.
WolfOliver 2y ago
With or without equations, just use MonsterWriter. It gives you LaTeX results without needing to know what LaTeX is. But, yes LaTeX has other benefits, e.g. citing references, or creating PDFs according to layout and typesettings best practices.
- m_kos 2y ago
  MonsterWriter is your product, correct?
- adwn 2y ago
  It is customary to add a short disclaimer when you're promoting your own product or project.
- WolfOliver 2y ago
  Yes it is my own product. Sorry for not pointing it out.
beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
I would say probably not. Markdown is really more about getting words down in plain text with a very simple structure for rendering on the web. Typst and LaTex make stark distinctions between composing and typesetting. They are programmatic typesetting systems with very structured and fine grained control over the look and design of a document once it's compiled and rendered as a PDF. If all you're doing is writing prose then I honestly think typesetting programs are overkill unless you do want very fine grained control over how your documents look.
Winsaucerer 2y ago
You've had some good replies already, but just want to add my thoughts. Markdown to me is more about (a) the content (the actual words) and (b) the semantics (text emphasis, headings, etc, which communicate information about the importance or meaning of particular things). Typesetting systems like Typst or LaTeX go beyond this. They're also about presentation, how precisely it is laid out, on mediums such as print or PDF. Is that something you need? If you care more about the content and its meaning, and are happy to have it rendered differently in different situations (a preview in Visual Studio Code, or passed through a markdown-to-html renderer, or viewed in Obsidian, etc), then Markdown might not just be fine, it may be preferable. But if you need to do things like print this on paper for mailing, email in a PDF, that sort of thing, then you'll want something more.
- thangalin 2y ago
  A few Markdown documents I've converted to PDFs: * https://impacts.to/downloads/lowres/impacts.pdf https://impacts.to/downloads/lowres/impacts.pdf * https://whitemagicsoftware.com/softcover/technical.pdf https://whitemagicsoftware.com/softcover/technical.pdf * https://whitemagicsoftware.com/softcover/jekyll-hyde.pdf https://whitemagicsoftware.com/softcover/jekyll-hyde.pdf Respectfully, keeping presentation logic and content completely separated while having precise control over layout can happen with Markdown, as the example documents demonstrate. The ConTeXt typesetting system makes keeping such separation possible. The deeper issue relates to the software's architecture, which, IMO, systems like Typst, Obsidian, and others fail to generalize broadly enough. Here's KeenWrite's architecture (the "Proposed" row): https://gitlab.com/DaveJarvis/KeenWrite/-/raw/main/docs/images/architecture/architecture.png https://gitlab.com/DaveJarvis/KeenWrite/-/raw/main/docs/imag... Although only Markdown is currently implemented, it's possible to plug other text-based input formats to produce an XHTML document. The instructions for how to typeset XHTML documents are defined by a theme. You can think of a theme as an XML to TeX translation layer. From there, going from XML to TeX is straightforward (when using ConTeXt, at least), allowing full control over the final output format (be it PDF, ePub, and so forth). I am the author of KeenWrite. The following tutorial shows how its themes work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QpX70O5S30&list=PLB-WIt1cZYLm1MMx2FBG9KWzPIoWZMKu_&index=9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QpX70O5S30&list=PLB-WIt1cZY...
constantcrying 2y ago
Typst deals with documents, so if you want to prepare an actual document, with a defined page layout, style, font, etc. typst gives you that. Markdown does not do any of that, it just gives you html. You would want to use typst if you want to create a document and need to control how that document looks from the language itself. Even if you were to render the markdown html to a PDF, markdown itself, or even css doesn't give you control over many parameters of the output document. There basically is no competition between the tools, they target different output formats.
- aragilar 2y ago
  I've done .doc -> .md -> .tex -> .pdf via pandoc (e.g. to convert a confluence document to a nicely typeset PDF), so I'm not sure there's much difference. Naturally, a format with more metadata loses metadata when converted to one with less (and the reverse, you may need to add metadata in when going up the chain), but unless your document is bound to a specific format (in which case, I'd pick RST for HTML and LaTeX for pdf), markdown gives you the content and pandoc lets you specify a template (and with pandoc, you can take the markdown and generate slides in HTML, PDF and create notes through the different outputs).
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    Conversions don't just loose metadata, you loose the ability to specify things. LaTeX shines because it can do everything by itself, markdown clearly can't and even with a TeX template you loose much of TeX's power. You should start out by defining your desired output and needed input. I realize that 99% of document content can be fully realized in markdown, but the 1% can easily be a total deal breaker and make using markdown a complete nonstarter.
  - wlievens 2y ago
    Markdown doesn't give you a table of contents, an index, page breaks, control over typesetting, control over table layout, captioned figures, diagramming tools, etc. The difference is about the same magnitude as between Pong and Call of Duty. Yes they're both video games, sometimes one is preferable over the other, but they are not equivalent.
tengwar2 2y ago
What are you doing with Markdown? My own requirements for a format are: * 30 year viability. * simple but explicit formatting: I need to specify font size, underline, and red text. * clarity in writing is almost as important as clarity in reading, so I am not fond of formatting directives mixed in with text. That led me to RTF, since Markdown fails on the second and third point, and LaTeX fails on the last. But you have to determine your own requirements from your use case.

It depends on what you are doing with your markdown files. For example, if you are using them as the source for a statically generated website typst won't do much for you.

PartiallyTyped 2y ago

You have more control over the style and structure. If you use markdown + css, that's a different story.

crngefest 2y ago
Yea that is my setup right now. I write markdown and use eleventy + nunjucks templates to build the final result. It’s pretty easy to create new layouts and styles for really any use case with that setup in minutes.
- PartiallyTyped 2y ago
  If that's the case, I don't think you will get any benefits by switching to Typst.

WolfOliver 2y ago

With or without equations, just use MonsterWriter. It gives you LaTeX results without needing to know what LaTeX is. But, yes LaTeX has other benefits, e.g. citing references, or creating PDFs according to layout and typesettings best practices.

m_kos 2y ago
MonsterWriter is your product, correct?
adwn 2y ago
It is customary to add a short disclaimer when you're promoting your own product or project.
WolfOliver 2y ago
Yes it is my own product. Sorry for not pointing it out.

beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago

I would say probably not. Markdown is really more about getting words down in plain text with a very simple structure for rendering on the web. Typst and LaTex make stark distinctions between composing and typesetting. They are programmatic typesetting systems with very structured and fine grained control over the look and design of a document once it's compiled and rendered as a PDF. If all you're doing is writing prose then I honestly think typesetting programs are overkill unless you do want very fine grained control over how your documents look.

Winsaucerer 2y ago

You've had some good replies already, but just want to add my thoughts. Markdown to me is more about (a) the content (the actual words) and (b) the semantics (text emphasis, headings, etc, which communicate information about the importance or meaning of particular things). Typesetting systems like Typst or LaTeX go beyond this. They're also about presentation, how precisely it is laid out, on mediums such as print or PDF. Is that something you need? If you care more about the content and its meaning, and are happy to have it rendered differently in different situations (a preview in Visual Studio Code, or passed through a markdown-to-html renderer, or viewed in Obsidian, etc), then Markdown might not just be fine, it may be preferable. But if you need to do things like print this on paper for mailing, email in a PDF, that sort of thing, then you'll want something more.

thangalin 2y ago
A few Markdown documents I've converted to PDFs: * https://impacts.to/downloads/lowres/impacts.pdf https://impacts.to/downloads/lowres/impacts.pdf * https://whitemagicsoftware.com/softcover/technical.pdf https://whitemagicsoftware.com/softcover/technical.pdf * https://whitemagicsoftware.com/softcover/jekyll-hyde.pdf https://whitemagicsoftware.com/softcover/jekyll-hyde.pdf Respectfully, keeping presentation logic and content completely separated while having precise control over layout can happen with Markdown, as the example documents demonstrate. The ConTeXt typesetting system makes keeping such separation possible. The deeper issue relates to the software's architecture, which, IMO, systems like Typst, Obsidian, and others fail to generalize broadly enough. Here's KeenWrite's architecture (the "Proposed" row): https://gitlab.com/DaveJarvis/KeenWrite/-/raw/main/docs/images/architecture/architecture.png https://gitlab.com/DaveJarvis/KeenWrite/-/raw/main/docs/imag... Although only Markdown is currently implemented, it's possible to plug other text-based input formats to produce an XHTML document. The instructions for how to typeset XHTML documents are defined by a theme. You can think of a theme as an XML to TeX translation layer. From there, going from XML to TeX is straightforward (when using ConTeXt, at least), allowing full control over the final output format (be it PDF, ePub, and so forth). I am the author of KeenWrite. The following tutorial shows how its themes work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QpX70O5S30&list=PLB-WIt1cZYLm1MMx2FBG9KWzPIoWZMKu_&index=9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QpX70O5S30&list=PLB-WIt1cZY...

constantcrying 2y ago

Typst deals with documents, so if you want to prepare an actual document, with a defined page layout, style, font, etc. typst gives you that. Markdown does not do any of that, it just gives you html. You would want to use typst if you want to create a document and need to control how that document looks from the language itself. Even if you were to render the markdown html to a PDF, markdown itself, or even css doesn't give you control over many parameters of the output document. There basically is no competition between the tools, they target different output formats.

aragilar 2y ago
I've done .doc -> .md -> .tex -> .pdf via pandoc (e.g. to convert a confluence document to a nicely typeset PDF), so I'm not sure there's much difference. Naturally, a format with more metadata loses metadata when converted to one with less (and the reverse, you may need to add metadata in when going up the chain), but unless your document is bound to a specific format (in which case, I'd pick RST for HTML and LaTeX for pdf), markdown gives you the content and pandoc lets you specify a template (and with pandoc, you can take the markdown and generate slides in HTML, PDF and create notes through the different outputs).
- constantcrying 2y ago
  Conversions don't just loose metadata, you loose the ability to specify things. LaTeX shines because it can do everything by itself, markdown clearly can't and even with a TeX template you loose much of TeX's power. You should start out by defining your desired output and needed input. I realize that 99% of document content can be fully realized in markdown, but the 1% can easily be a total deal breaker and make using markdown a complete nonstarter.
- wlievens 2y ago
  Markdown doesn't give you a table of contents, an index, page breaks, control over typesetting, control over table layout, captioned figures, diagramming tools, etc. The difference is about the same magnitude as between Pong and Call of Duty. Yes they're both video games, sometimes one is preferable over the other, but they are not equivalent.

tengwar2 2y ago

What are you doing with Markdown? My own requirements for a format are: * 30 year viability. * simple but explicit formatting: I need to specify font size, underline, and red text. * clarity in writing is almost as important as clarity in reading, so I am not fond of formatting directives mixed in with text. That led me to RTF, since Markdown fails on the second and third point, and LaTeX fails on the last. But you have to determine your own requirements from your use case.