Typst seems to be the product of a commercial company - fully controlled by it. That's not appropriate as a foundation for document authoring by "the public".

I am also worried about the rust-centricity, seeing how rust is somewhat of a moving target.

▲

Mikhail_K 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's under Apache license, and therefore it can be taken closed-source at any moment.

Rust is a language for virtue-signalling, rather than for doing useful work.

	▲	eigenspace 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Can you clarify what you mean when you say it can be taken closed-source at any moment? Do you mean that future iterations of the software could be closed source? As far as I understand, they can't just revoke the existing open source license for the existing already distributed software, and if they did decide to move forward from here with closed source distribution, the community would be free to just fork the existing codebase and continue working on it.
	▲	throawayonthe 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		how? as a copyright holder you can at any time relicense code as proprietary of course, but that neither revokes the existing licensed code, nor is at all unique to the apache license?

▲

suddenlybananas 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you mean the rust-centricity?

	▲	tialaramex 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Some people have this weird idea that because Rust ships new versions very often (every six weeks, like a web browser) this means it's unstable. They see rust 1.90 and they're like "Oh no, that's dozens of incompatible versions" rather than "Wow, over ten years of commitment to compatibility".