Typst is a new markup-based typesetting system that is designed to be as powerful as LaTeX while being much easier to learn and use. [1.1]
References
- Type: Webpage. Title: “typst/typst”. Publisher: “GitHub”. Published (Modified): 2026-03-16T09:39:55.000Z. Accessed: 2025-03-18T08:55Z. URI: https://github.com/typst/typst.
- Type: File. Title: “README.md”.
- Type: Text. Location: ¶1.
- Type: File. Title: “README.md”.
I’d say it still have a long way to go, especially for advanced use cases
If you just want to have a quick pdf generator, it’s definitely the right tool.
One thing that’s way better is the scripting. In LaTeX it’s just an afterthought, simply exposing its convoluted core. In Typst, it feels way more like a first class feature.
For easy pdfs, use markdown with a typst backend
Typst syntax is already simple enough. Why add an unnecessary layer of abstraction
[…] use markdown with a typst backend
How could one do that?
Pandoc, quarto
I’d say it still have a long way to go, especially for advanced use cases […]
What do you think it’s still lacking?
The ability to load custom fonts comes to mind. I remember when I was converting my document from TeX to Typst was that I wasn’t able to just specify my .ttf file path.
Maths feels like a first class citizen in latex. The syntax is ugly, but there is some logic through the legacy jank.
Typst makes fundamental design decisions that render it unsuitable beyond extremely simply equations. In LaTeX, curly braces are nearly always reserved for enclosing arguments, to avoid confusion with actual brackets.
Typst uses normal brackets for both its scripting and actual maths.
For example,
\frac{n(n+1)}{2}in latex turns into(n(n + 1)) / 2in typst. The typst code is incredibly unclear - the first set of brackets with the slash together actually form the fraction operator, so neither end up visible.You can see how this would start to struggle even with high school level maths, with bracketed terms and possibly fractional terms in exponents, integrals, etc.
For example, it is very difficult for me to work out the difference between the following three in typst. That is specifically not what you want from a typesetting language.
1/2(x + y) 1/x(x + y) 1/2^x(x + y)LaTeX ignores whitespace, so you can just use a formatter to space out your code and ensure the curly braces. This is not even an option in typst, which uses the space as an escape character.
[…] You can see how this would start to struggle even with high school level maths, with bracketed terms and possibly fractional terms in exponents, integrals, etc.
For example, it is very difficult for me to work out the difference between the following three in typst. That is specifically not what you want from a typesetting language.
1/2(x + y) 1/x(x + y) 1/2^x(x + y)[…]
I think these are valid complaints. For clarity, this is the output that I found for each:
[1]
[2]
[3]
I was surprised by the second; I expected it to produce
[6]. I didn’t know what to expect for the third.I tried searching through the documentation [4], but I was unable to find any information that exactly defined expressions [5], and how they are grouped within the fraction when juxtaposed like in your examples.
References
- Type: Anecdote. Published: 2026-03-19T07:20Z.
-
echo "#set page(width: auto, height: auto, margin: 0pt); $ 1/2(x + y) $" | typst compile - o.png
-
- Type: Anecdote. Published: 2026-03-19T07:20Z.
-
echo "#set page(width: auto, height: auto, margin: 0pt); $ 1/x(x + y) $" | typst compile - o.png
-
- Type: Anecdote. Published: 2026-03-19T07:20Z.
-
echo "#set page(width: auto, height: auto, margin: 0pt); $ 1/2^x(x + y) $" | typst compile - o.png
-
- Type: Webpage. Title: “typst Documentation”. Publisher: “Typst”. Accessed: 2026-03-19T07:25Z. URI: https://typst.app/docs/.
- Type: Text. Publisher: [Type: Webpage. Publisher: “Typst”. Title: “frac”. URI: https://typst.app/docs/reference/math/frac/.]. Accessed: 2026-03-19T07:26Z. Location: §“Syntax”.
-
[…] Use a slash to turn neighbouring expressions into a fraction. […]
- The quote mentions that the components within the fraction are called expressions.
-
- Type: Anecdote. Published: 2026-03-19T07:39Z.
-
echo "#set page(width: auto, height: auto, margin: 0pt); $ 1/x (x + y) $" | typst compile - o.png
-
[…] For example,
\frac{n(n+1)}{2}in latex turns into(n(n + 1)) / 2in typst. The typst code is incredibly unclear - the first set of brackets with the slash together actually form the fraction operator, so neither end up visible. […]IMO, it’s only unclear if one isn’t familiar with the syntax — I think the documentation states the behaviour clearly:
[…] Multiple atoms can be grouped into a single expression using round grouping parentheses. Such parentheses are removed from the output, but you can nest multiple to force them. [1]
This isn’t in defense of Typist’s syntax, but I challenge you to show the uninitiated your example LaTeX expression,
\frac{n(n+1)}{2}, and see if they are able to accurately parse it.References
- Type: Text. Publisher: [Type: Webpage. Title: “frac”. Publisher: “Typst”. Location: “Documentation”>“Reference”>“Math”>“Fraction”. Location (URI): https://typst.app/docs/reference/math/frac/.]. Accessed: 2026-03-18T05:34Z. Location: §“Syntax”.
[…] LaTeX ignores whitespace, so you can just use a formatter to space out your code and ensure the curly braces. This is not even an option in typst, which uses the space as an escape character.
I’m not sure I exactly follow what you mean. Could you elaborate?
[…]
\frac{n(n+1)}{2}in latex turns into(n(n + 1)) / 2in typst […]Note that one can also write that as
frac(n(n+1), 2)[1][4].References
- Type: Webpage. Title: “frac”. Publisher: “Typst”. Location: “Documentation”>“Reference”>“Math”>“Fraction”. Location (URI): https://typst.app/docs/reference/math/frac/. Accessed: 2026-03-18T05:34Z.
- Type: Anecdote. Published: 2026-03-19T07:51Z.
-
echo "#set page(width: auto, height: auto, margin: 0pt); $ (n(n + 1)) / 2 $" | typst compile - o.png
-
- Type: Anecdote. Published: 2026-03-19T07:51Z.
-
echo "#set page(width: auto, height: auto, margin: 0pt); $ frac(n(n+1), 2) $" | typst compile - o.png
-
- Type: Meta. Published: 2026-03-19T07:53Z.
- Both
(n(n + 1)) / 2, andfrac(n(n+1), 2)result in
in Typst [2][3]
- Both
I love typst but I don’t use it. Academic journal templates are all latex, so I can’t use it for my primary use case.
From my limited journal submission experience, some at least just want a PDF. They’ll re-set the thing anyway.
I’ve used Typst a good bit for both fully private stuff and for uni shenanigans and can say that it has fully replaced Latex for me (when I have a choice, I have managed to convince a few others too). The main thing that won me over was the compilation speed, but the more I’ve used it the more natural it feels compared to Latex. It’s modern by default (you can really just use it with no preamble and it’s sane enough), and the ability to write a mostly normal programming language is just amazing. I’ve produced plenty of simple plots fully within Typst for example, and things like
show-rules are genuine innovation. It’s of course not perfect, but at this point a good number of these are just additional packages that could be written.I’ve been meaning to learn LaTeX but never got around to it. I write documents in markdown and convert to PDF, but would like to have some rich typesetting.
For anyone who has ever used both, would you recommend learning this or LaTeX for non-academic use case?
I can only speak for myself but I like Typst a lot more than LaTeX. Typst compiles instantly and the markup language is very reasonable. LaTeX by comparison is slow and arcane, with a macro language that is unlike anything else in common use today. It also has pretty awful defaults to be honest, especially if you’re writing in a language that isn’t English. There are a few things that Typst can’t quite do, but that gap is shrinking as well.
Edit: This blog post has some examples and showcases a lot of the core functionality, including the scripting. Typst has a playground which you can use to get a feel for the basics (though installing it locally isn’t a massive pain either, unlike LaTeX). Overleaf allows trying LaTeX in the browser for free as well, although only with an account (partly because LaTeX tooling is a pain and expensive in CPU resources).
As someone who used LaTeX for many years and then switched over to Typst, I see no reason to use LaTeX these days. Typst syntax is more readable and it is much nicer to write.
Especially if you’re coming from markdown, I think Typst is the better choice. Typst syntax is very similar to markdown for the simple things and more advanced things are like any super high level programming language.
“As powerful as LaTeX” is a huge claim. How strong is this claim?
Edit: The claim is that it is designed to be as powerful as LaTeX, not that it presently is. Does it reach its goal?
For those looking for a showcase, take a look at this recent publication in an academic journal.
How does Typst compare to something like Asciidoc ? I haven’t found many editors with typst support unfortunately
[…] I haven’t found many editors with typst support unfortunately
I’m not sure what you mean — I personally just write it in VS Code [1], and then compile it locally [2].
References
- Type: Website. Title: “Visual Studio Code”. Publisher: “Visual Studio Code”. Accessed: 2026-03-19T08:56Z. Location (URI): https://code.visualstudio.com/.
- Type: Webpage. Title: “typst/typst”. Publisher: “GitHub”. Published (Modified): 2026-03-18T10:04:07.000Z. Accessed: 2026-03-19T08:59Z. Location (URI): https://github.com/typst/typst.
I meant a normal note taking application, not text editors or IDEs. I use markor on my Android phone, it has support for Markdown and Asciidoc. Markdown is fine until you need tables.
I’ve heard from a lot of people how typst is amazing, but found no apps with support for it. Is it because it’s still in development ?
I don’t think that is how it works. It is not wysiwyg but a meta language.
It’s not the same use case. Asciidoc is closer to markdown/org/reST, i.e., simple markup languages, whereas Typst also emphasizes on presentation (layouting, element positioning, creation of complex figures, etc.). You can reproduce features from Asciidoc in Typst using scripting.
As for editors, aside from the official webapp, and the community LSP (tinymist), there aren’t that many available.
It might have a better UX than LaTeX but by design it also has the same double-edge sword feature - if you want or need to do something that is not covered by the default styles you have to rely on 3rd party plugins. That’s just fine for academic papers and such but not when you need a custom style.
Imho ConTeXt still is the king on that side. Though I wish it had the same development pace and documentation as LaTeX’s - or at least as Typst’s
Since when is UX the cause of a need for third-party plugins?
LaTeX is an incredibly mature puece of software, since it exists for some 50 years and is (and was) incredibly popular. Of vourse newer players won’t have as much ready-made plugins, let alone first-party pavkages for most stuff.
Latex surely had the exact same issue when it wasn’t as mature as it is today, but in time people wrote plugins and in more time they were included as defaults.
Comparing them quality-wise on equal footing and proclaiming Latex better than the younger, less popular alternative with less developed community code is disingenuous at best.
And UI/UX has absolutely nothing to do with styling: both are features, and one product happens to have one while the other happens to have the other.
