This post compares the layout models of TeX and Typst, two typesetting systems. TeX uses a box, glue, and penalty model, where content is placed in boxes, connected by flexible glue, and broken into lines/pages based on penalties assigned to different breaks. This system, while powerful and time-tested, can be complex and unintuitive. Typst, in contrast, uses a flow model where content flows naturally into frames, automatically reflowing based on the available space. This offers greater simplicity and flexibility, especially for complex layouts, but sacrifices some fine-grained control compared to TeX's explicit breakpoints and penalties. The author concludes that while both systems are effective, Typst's flow-based model presents a more modern and potentially easier-to-grasp approach to typesetting.
Clay is a UI layout library focused on providing a robust, composable, and performant system for building user interfaces. It leverages CSS Grid and a declarative JavaScript API to define layouts, offering a clean separation of concerns between structure and styling. The library emphasizes flexibility and extensibility, allowing developers to create complex, responsive layouts with minimal code. By handling layout logic, Clay frees developers to focus on component development and overall application functionality, ultimately aiming to streamline the UI development process.
HN users generally praised Clay's approach to layout, highlighting its use of constraints, which some compared favorably to CSS Flexbox and Grid. Several appreciated its focus on solving layout problems specifically, rather than trying to be an all-encompassing UI framework. The lack of browser support and the potential performance implications of using WebAssembly were raised as concerns. Some commenters questioned the choice of Rust/WebAssembly and suggested alternatives like native JavaScript or compiling to WebAssembly from a language with better JavaScript interoperability. The project's early stage of development was also noted, with several users expressing interest in its future progress. Some discussed the complexity of layout systems and whether Clay's constraint-based approach offered significant advantages over existing solutions.
The CSS contain property allows developers to isolate a portion of the DOM, improving performance by limiting the scope of browser calculations like layout, style, and paint. By specifying values like layout, style, paint, and size, authors can tell the browser that changes within the contained element won't affect its surroundings, or vice versa. This allows the browser to optimize rendering and avoid unnecessary recalculations, leading to smoother and faster web experiences, particularly for complex or dynamic layouts. The content keyword offers the strongest form of containment, encompassing all the other values, while strict and size offer more granular control.
Hacker News users discussed the usefulness of the contain CSS property, particularly for performance optimization by limiting the scope of layout, style, and paint calculations. Some highlighted its power in isolating components and improving rendering times, especially in complex web applications. Others pointed out the potential for misuse and the importance of understanding its various values (layout, style, paint, size, and content) to achieve desired effects. A few users mentioned specific use cases, like efficiently handling large lists or off-screen elements, and wished for wider adoption and better browser support for some of its features, like containment for subtree layout changes. Some expressed that containment is a powerful but often overlooked tool for optimizing web page performance.
Summary of Comments ( 10 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43032697
HN commenters largely praised the article for its clear explanation of layout models in TeX and Typst. Several noted the helpful visualizations and the clear comparisons between the two systems. Some discussed the trade-offs between the flexibility of TeX and the predictability of Typst, with some expressing interest in Typst's approach for certain use cases. One commenter pointed out that the article didn't cover all of TeX's complexities, which the author acknowledged. There was also a brief discussion about the potential for combining aspects of both systems.
The Hacker News post discussing TeX and Typst's layout models has generated a moderate amount of discussion. Several commenters offer insightful comparisons and perspectives on the two systems.
One compelling comment highlights the difference in how TeX and Typst approach extensibility. TeX's macro-based extension system, while powerful, is considered complex and difficult to learn, leading to a fragmented ecosystem of packages with varying quality and compatibility. In contrast, Typst's extension system, built on a general-purpose programming language, is seen as more approachable and potentially leading to a more coherent and maintainable ecosystem.
Another comment chain delves into the specifics of Typst's layout model, particularly its box model. One commenter expresses concern about its seeming lack of flexibility compared to TeX, specifically citing the challenge of achieving certain layouts like overlapping elements or fine-grained control over whitespace. Another commenter counters this by pointing out Typst's features that allow for more advanced layout control, suggesting that the initial commenter's perceived limitations might stem from unfamiliarity with the system rather than inherent shortcomings. This exchange reveals a nuanced understanding of both systems and their relative strengths and weaknesses.
A few comments touch upon the performance differences between the two. While acknowledging TeX's maturity and optimization, some users express hope that Typst, being a newer project, might offer potential performance gains in the future, particularly for complex documents.
Several commenters express appreciation for Typst's modern design and cleaner syntax, making it more accessible to newcomers. They view it as a potential successor to TeX, offering a more streamlined and contemporary approach to typesetting.
Finally, some comments focus on the practical implications of adopting Typst, discussing the availability of features, support for various output formats, and the overall ecosystem maturity compared to the established and robust TeX ecosystem.