Typst is interesting, but it doesn't yet support all microtypography features provided by microtype. IMHO, those make a big difference.
Typst is interesting, but it doesn't yet support all microtypography features provided by microtype. IMHO, those make a big difference.
Large swathes of mathematics, computer science, and physics involve notations and diagrams that are genuinely hard to typeset, and incredibly repetitive and hard to read if you don’t make heavy use of the macro system. Integrating some actual programming features could be a game changer.
LuaTeX already lets you embed Lua code and it is really good.
However, I do agree some usability improvements are needed.
Look at this thing: https://images.app.goo.gl/4WHN9Pqupxkk8Z3j7
And that’s before you get into stuff like categories of spans, etc.
It is what sets professional typography apart. Only Adobe InDesign provides a comparable implementation, tweaking all those details.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hz-program for a better explanation and an example.
IMHO, the difference is obvious and not minor. Without microtypography texts look ugly: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Hz_Progr...
Which is to say, half of these things are pretty subjective.
TeXmacs claims to have implemented microtypography as well (https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/news.en.html, as I am reading it, in the opening paragraph on version 2.1)
I'd also not overemphasize the significance of microtype features. They might help with narrow columns but on wider columnds the difference is very small and most people will never notice them at all.