Apparently Typst isn't supported by many journals, forcing LaTeX usage, anyone have experiences with this situation?

I still much prefer LaTeX actually, I don't feel like Typst improves over its main flaw, i.e. lack of consistency. One could argue that it's even more inconsistent. I really miss commands, \section for example clearly does what it says it does, while '=' is more nebulous. I don't like that instead of typing `\alpha+c` now I need to write `alpha + c` it blurs the line between what is a command and what isn't.

So imo in terms of scientific writing it's pretty off the mark

	▲	mr_mitm 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Most, if not all of these are just syntactic sugar. You can simply write `#heading()` instead. Although I'm not sure if there is an equivalent in math mode.

▲

ashton314 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I spoke to the couple (it’s like a single married couple + a bunch of scripts they’ve wrote) who handle the formatting for a bunch of the programming language-related conferences around the world (and others too maybe) and they are interested in Typst and are looking into it! (They’re also super nice folks.)