Benchmarking Automatic Typesetting Systems
16 points
5 days ago
| 2 comments
| news.speedata.de
| HN
patrickg
5 days ago
[-]
I benchmark six different typesetting systems, typst ist by far the fastest. This article describes why the speedata Publisher is still my choice for producing product catalogs.
reply
slybot
1 hour ago
[-]
This comment has a tone of external reviewer, while appearantly your profile shows you are affiliated.
reply
TimorousBestie
1 hour ago
[-]
They probably added text to their link submission. It’s not immediately clear that this text shows up as a comment indistinguishable from anyone else’s.
reply
patrickg
1 hour ago
[-]
Correct, I rarely submit something, I wasn't aware that I don't have to fill in all fields.
reply
umairnadeem123
1 hour ago
[-]
really enjoyed this. question: when benchmarking typesetting systems, how do you normalize for 'design intent' vs algorithmic optimization (eg manual kerning/ligature choices)? are you comparing them on the same input markup with default settings, or tuning each system to best effort? the tuning knob count can swamp raw perf.
reply
patrickg
1 hour ago
[-]
Thank you (author here). I deliberately used the default settings. Typst mentions settings for the line breaking system in the manual (for example you can set the penalties for changing interword spacing between lines), the speedata publisher can switch on margin kerning.

There might be settings to speed up things, so if any of the authors provide me with the settings, I'd be happy to implement those.

reply