[…] 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].

[…] I’ve definitely had my fair share of experiences wrestling with Typst to do things that are trivial in LaTeX […]

Could you share some of these experiences? 🙂

[…] [Typst] still has not reached feature parity with LaTeX […]

What, in your opinion, do you think it’s still lacking?

[…] 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?

[…] 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. ^[1]
2. ^[2]
3. ^[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.

[…] \frac{n(n+1)}{2} in latex turns into (n(n + 1)) / 2 in typst […]

Note that one can also write that as frac(n(n+1), 2) ^[1][4].

[…] For example, \frac{n(n+1)}{2} in latex turns into (n(n + 1)) / 2 in 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.

[…] use markdown with a typst backend

How could one do that?

I don’t know what Typst’s custom font support was like in the past, but, currently ^[1], Typst does allow the usage of custom fonts:

• The Typst CLI can use installed system fonts ^[1.2].
• The Typst CLI can be passed directories that should be scanned for fonts through the --font-path argument or the TYPST_FONT_PATHS environment variable ^[1.3].
• Fonts can also be uploaded directly to the web app ^[1.1].

I’d say it still have a long way to go, especially for advanced use cases […]

What do you think it’s still lacking?

My main server runs Ubuntu Server (I’m thinking about switching it to Debian), and my laptop and desktop both run Arch Linux. Generally, I pick whatever I think is best for the given usecase — things like stability, package availability, documentation, security, etc. are considered.

See the latter part of my comment.

[…] thanks for following up! […]

You’re welcome 😊

[…] OP tell me your conclusion for best hardware licence when you get there.

I think I’m just going to go with CERN-OHL-S ^[1]. I have yet to find anything better, and @ganymede@lemmy.ml raised some good points regarding it ^[2], imo.

imo i wouldn’t overlook CERN too much due to apparent obscurity. that’s CERN as in WWW & LHC.

plus it’s specifically designed for hw, unlike most of the others which are more likely to lean sw centric? […]

I think these are fair points!

[…] When some South Koreans were jailed for upholding my license terms when they spotted their employer violating them […]

If they had a court case, do you, by chance, have a source for it?

[…] I thought only the BSD license allowed corporations to profit from your work. […]

The MIT License allows this as well ^[1].

[…] It was just explained to me by many on Lemmy that not just GPL but the actual definition of Open Source requires that you allow large corporations to profit off your work. […]

IMO, you can define it, or any word, however you want; all that matters is that the definitions are agreed upon between the parties engaging in conversation.

Hm, I’ve come across a number of statements that the GPL isn’t well suited to hardware ^[1][2][3], but I’m not well enough versed in IP law to be confident in my understanding or the soundness of their rationale. Directly from the GNU Operating System:

Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a physical object or circuit under the GPL.

In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical hardware from a drawing. In these situations, your license for the drawing simply can’t exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use. When copyright does cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles that case in a useful way. ^[4]

I’m not really sure.

Lemmy ^[1]