Stories with Tag TeX

• TeX and Typst: Layout Models (2024)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-13 04:34:09

  Verbose tl;dr

  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.

  The blog post "TeX and Typst: Layout Models (2024)" by Laur Maedje delves into the differing approaches of TeX and Typst, two prominent typesetting systems, in handling layout, specifically focusing on paragraph breaking and line breaking. The author meticulously dissects the core algorithms and underlying philosophies that shape how these systems determine the optimal visual presentation of text.

  TeX, renowned for its sophisticated line breaking algorithm, employs a dynamic programming approach that evaluates potential breakpoints based on a complex cost function. This function considers factors like hyphenation penalties, inter-word spacing, and the overall "badness" of a line, aiming to minimize the cumulative cost across the entire paragraph. This global optimization strategy contributes to TeX's ability to produce visually appealing and balanced paragraphs, even in complex scenarios. The author highlights TeX's paragraph building process as a sequential one, where lines are finalized one by one, each decision influencing subsequent choices. Furthermore, TeX’s approach is characterized as being greedy with respect to vertical space, meaning it prioritizes minimizing the number of lines used for a paragraph.

  In contrast, Typst adopts a markedly different strategy, prioritizing flexibility and responsiveness to content adjustments. Its paragraph layout model leverages the concept of boxes and flows. Boxes represent rectangular content areas with fixed dimensions, while flows manage the arrangement and distribution of content within these boxes. Typst breaks paragraphs into lines independently, without considering the global context of the entire paragraph. This localized approach offers advantages in terms of adaptability and performance, especially in dynamic environments where content might change frequently. However, it can potentially lead to suboptimal line breaks compared to TeX's globally optimized approach.

  The post then explores the implications of these differing layout models for various typographic elements and functionalities. Specifically, it discusses how floats (like figures and tables) are integrated into the text flow. In TeX, floats are traditionally placed somewhat independently of the paragraph structure, potentially leading to awkward placements if not carefully managed. Typst, with its box model, offers more control and predictability in float placement, allowing for more intuitive integration with the surrounding text.

  The author concludes by acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. TeX excels in producing visually refined paragraphs due to its global optimization, while Typst prioritizes flexibility and ease of use, particularly in dynamic contexts. The post ultimately frames the choice between these two systems as a trade-off between typographic finesse and practicality, depending on the specific needs of the user and the nature of the document being created. The underlying message emphasizes the importance of understanding the fundamental layout models employed by different typesetting systems to make informed decisions and achieve the desired typographic outcome.

  • TeX
  • Typst
  • typesetting
  • Layout
  • Document Formatting
  • Comparison
  • Typography
  • LaTeX
  • 2024
  • Digital Typography
  • publishing

  Summary of Comments ( 10 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43032697

  Verbose tl;dr

  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.

• ArXiv LaTeX Cleaner: Clean the LaTeX code of your paper to submit to ArXiv

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-31 18:47:13

  Verbose tl;dr

  The arXiv LaTeX Cleaner is a tool that automatically cleans up LaTeX source code for submission to arXiv, improving compliance and reducing potential processing errors. It addresses common issues like removing disallowed commands, fixing figure path problems, and converting EPS figures to PDF. The cleaner also standardizes fonts, removes unnecessary packages, and reduces file sizes, ultimately streamlining the arXiv submission process and promoting wider paper accessibility.

  The ArXiv LaTeX Cleaner, a tool developed by Google Research and available on GitHub, addresses the common issue of LaTeX source code becoming cluttered and unwieldy during the writing and revision process of academic papers, particularly those intended for submission to the arXiv preprint server. This accumulation of unnecessary packages, commands, and commented-out text can lead to larger file sizes, slower compilation times, and potential compatibility problems when the arXiv processing system attempts to render the submitted document. The cleaner aims to streamline the LaTeX code, making it more concise and efficient without altering the rendered output.

  The tool achieves this cleaning through a series of automated processes. It identifies and removes unused packages, eliminating dependencies that are not actively contributing to the final document. It also deletes commented-out code blocks, which are often remnants of previous drafts or exploratory coding attempts. Furthermore, the cleaner simplifies the preamble by removing redundant or unnecessary commands and declarations. This contributes to a cleaner and more manageable preamble section, improving readability and maintainability.

  Beyond these core functionalities, the ArXiv LaTeX Cleaner provides options for more aggressive cleaning strategies. These options allow users to remove auxiliary files that are not essential for compilation on the arXiv, further reducing the submission size. The tool can also be configured to flatten the directory structure of the submission, consolidating all necessary files into a single directory, simplifying the submission process and reducing the risk of missing dependencies.

  The project is open-source, allowing for community contributions and adaptations. Users can easily integrate the cleaner into their existing LaTeX workflow through command-line usage or by utilizing the provided Docker container, ensuring platform compatibility. This flexibility enables researchers to incorporate the tool seamlessly into their preferred writing and submission processes. The project's GitHub repository includes detailed documentation and examples, facilitating easy adoption and customization to suit individual needs. The cleaner serves as a valuable resource for the academic community, promoting cleaner, more efficient LaTeX code practices and ultimately contributing to a smoother arXiv submission experience.

  • LaTeX
  • arXiv
  • Preprint
  • academic publishing
  • Code Cleaning
  • Formatting
  • Automation
  • Tool
  • Open Source
  • Python
  • Google Research
  • GitHub
  • TeX
  • Scientific Writing
  • PDF

  Summary of Comments ( 33 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42890383

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users generally praised the arXiv LaTeX cleaner for its potential to improve the consistency and readability of submitted papers. Several commenters highlighted the tool's ability to strip unnecessary packages and commands, leading to smaller file sizes and faster processing. Some expressed hope that this would become a standard pre-submission step, while others were more cautious, pointing to the possibility of unintended consequences like breaking custom formatting or introducing subtle errors. The ability to remove comments was also a point of discussion, with some finding it useful for cleaning up draft versions before submission, while others worried about losing valuable context. A few commenters suggested additional features, like converting EPS figures to PDF and adding a DOI badge to the title page. Overall, the reception was positive, with many seeing the tool as a valuable contribution to the academic writing process.

  The Hacker News post discussing Google Research's ArXiv LaTeX Cleaner has generated several comments exploring various aspects of the tool and its implications.

  Several users express appreciation for the tool, highlighting its potential to improve the consistency and readability of LaTeX submissions to arXiv. One commenter specifically mentions how beneficial this would be for reviewers, making the review process smoother. Others agree, pointing out the frequent inconsistencies and messy LaTeX they encounter in preprints.

  Some comments delve into the specifics of the cleaner's functionality. One user questions whether the tool addresses the issue of inconsistent capitalization in bibliography entries, a common problem in LaTeX documents. Another inquires about the handling of specific LaTeX packages and commands, expressing concern that the cleaner might remove necessary elements. A subsequent reply clarifies that the tool offers options to preserve certain commands and environments, addressing these concerns. There's also discussion around whether the tool corrects for specific journal requirements or simply standardizes the LaTeX for arXiv, with general agreement that it's focused on the latter.

  The conversation also touches upon the broader implications of such a tool. One commenter speculates on the potential for automated LaTeX cleanup to become integrated into the arXiv submission process itself. Another expresses skepticism, suggesting that authors might resist such automation, preferring to maintain control over their LaTeX source. The debate around automated versus manual cleanup highlights the tension between standardization and authorial autonomy.

  One user raises the point that the existence of such a tool underscores the limitations of LaTeX, arguing that a more modern markup language might be preferable. This sparks a brief discussion on the merits and drawbacks of LaTeX, with some defending its flexibility and power despite its complexities.

  Finally, some comments focus on practical aspects of using the tool. One user requests information on how to integrate the cleaner into their existing LaTeX workflow. Another shares their experience using the tool, reporting positive results and highlighting specific features they found useful. This practical feedback offers valuable insights for potential users.

  Overall, the comments reflect a generally positive reception of the ArXiv LaTeX Cleaner, acknowledging its potential to address the prevalent issue of messy LaTeX in arXiv submissions. The discussion also touches on broader topics such as the future of LaTeX and the balance between automation and author control in academic publishing.