[throw_pm23]

Typst may have its pros and momentum (I haven't tried it myself yet), but I find this attitude and language used by its proponents very offputting.

I've only heard Knuth and Lamport speak respectfully about the technologies that came before tex and latex.

[velcrovan]

What do you think of this post by Typst's primary contributor? https://laurmaedje.github.io/posts/layout-models/

Do you think it is sufficiently respectful of TeX/LaTeX?

As far as proponents go, I will echo the sentiments of many people who have actually used both TeX and Typst: I have been able to accomplish many things in Typst within an hour or two by writing my own Typst code, that in LaTeX I could only accomplish after several days by cargo-culting indecipherable gibberish from years-old forum posts. I freely admit Typst can't (yet) match LaTeX's long-tail package ecosystem, but it is much more pleasant to use and easier to reason about.

[fngjdflmdflg]

I posted that link here earlier last month[0] and even I think the comment was off putting because it's off topic and just a way to put something down. "The link you posted is becoming increasingly irrelevant" doesn't seem to add much to the conversation. To the extent that it does add something (ie. comparison of typst and Tex/LaTex) it could be phrased very differently. The way it is written now also invites similarly phrased criticism the other way as seen in other replies. I agree typst is much more pleasant to write. Also yes I doubt the typst developers would call LaTex irrelevant. In fact the author specifically points out ways the Tex currently outperforms typst. (Not to imply you stated otherwise.)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43032697

[yannis]

>in LaTeX I could only accomplish after several days by cargo-culting indecipherable gibberish from years-old forum posts To learn basic use of LaTeX, takes an afternoon. To understand the language fully takes "effortful learning" like any other programming language.