The argument for Pandoc is that (last I checked) Typst doesn’t compile to e.g. HTML, EPUB, or DOCX. So if you’re writing something that should be available in multiple formats, it might still make sense to type it in e.g. Markdown and then Pandoc it to the other formats, but replacing TeX with Typst.
That said, I agree with you that I don’t see any reason to do Markdown -> Typst conversion unless you have multiple compile targets, as Typst syntax is pretty readable/writeable already.
For now I’m still using mostly TeX or Org-mode, but I made lecture notes for a class I taught last year in Typst and was pretty happy with that. Some things related to figures and tables felt a bit rough, and the Emacs mode for it also felt a bit WIP, but both are probably vastly improved by now.
Luckily, Typst actually has experimental HTML export which is progressing quite nicely (even with MathML in the next update!), see here: https://typst.app/docs/reference/html/
That said, I agree with you that I don’t see any reason to do Markdown -> Typst conversion unless you have multiple compile targets, as Typst syntax is pretty readable/writeable already.
For now I’m still using mostly TeX or Org-mode, but I made lecture notes for a class I taught last year in Typst and was pretty happy with that. Some things related to figures and tables felt a bit rough, and the Emacs mode for it also felt a bit WIP, but both are probably vastly improved by now.