Live data from Hacker News

Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

karl-voit.at

121–130 of 221 posts

Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

#121

Sure. And driving on the left is one of the most reasonable sides of the road to drive on, but in a country where everyone drives on the right, it’s good to accept that, though driving on the left offers just as many advantages, nonetheless you shouldn’t insist on continuing to do so. Markdown is also one of the most reasonable markup languages to use for text, and it has won sufficient share that it should be your d…

And here I am still carrying the torch for BBCode-alikes...

Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

#122
post #99

Sure. And driving on the left is one of the most reasonable sides of the road to drive on, but in a country where everyone drives on the right, it’s good to accept that, though driving on the left offers just as many advantages, nonetheless you shouldn’t insist on continuing to do so. Markdown is also one of the most reasonable markup languages to use for text, and it has won sufficient share that it should be your d…

As long as we're telling people they should conform to what everyone else uses, why aren't you using Microsoft Word format instead?

We are talking about choosing a lightweight text markup language. Not choosing a file format for rich text files.

Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

#123
post #106

Question: why is ` https://orgmode.org/ ` in html and not in ... org mode?

Looking at the markup of some pages, such as https://orgmode.org/Changes.html , at least parts of the website seem to have been generated from Org mode.

Yeah, but still not org mode.

Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

#124

I discovered and started using org-mode (and, as a result, Emacs) when I migrated from Evernote in '16. Today I use it for all my project, task and knowledge management needs, with some files going over 15MB in size. And I'm still loving it. Started out with headers only, and every time I wanted something more, it was always just there for the taking. Easy to use, and also crazy powerful. Can't think of anything else…

I've started using org-mode couple of years ago, and write documents using the basic features like headers and formatting, links between docs, and code sections, but still haven't figured out which power features are the ones worth investing time into, and would be the most useful. Which further features would you recommend digging into, based on your experience?

I suspect this is an issue for most org-mode users, we all use different things.

I have two real uses for org-mode; I write a "work log", or "diary", every day I'm at work which keeps track of meetings, tickets/issues I work on, pull-requests I review, etc.

Unrelated to that I have a property I rent out, and I keep a table for each year showing rent-received from my tenant. I have a little "database" of previous tenants, and their details.

When I add a new table row for this year, say "January 2026 | Sharon | €1000", that updates the global profit/loss table for the document as well as profit/loss for the current year AND a t able which just lists the tenants I've known, how much they paid, and how many months they rented for.

Both of these two use-cases use very different things. The diary is just a text-block as template, the financial stuff uses multiple tables, custom elisp code, and some summing operations.

Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

#126
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the original comment was implying org mode had limited popularity because there is no specification. I'm claiming cpython is way more popular compared to fe pypy because it has no spec. The typical scenario is: people try pypy. it mostly works but because of some weird problem some library is broken and then they give up.

Is the claim that pypy has no spec, but cpython does? By that definition I think either both have a spec (they both use https://docs.python.org/3/reference/index.html and both are just "an implementation") or neither has one (since neither fully specifies all behavior and all modules, which is probably true for ~all languages).

No. The claim is cpython has no spec. The link you posted is about the language. The spec claim is about the behaviour of the runtime.

The underlying claim is hat pypy cannot succeed precisely because there's no clear definition of success/compatibility/compliance. The situation is completely different in the Java world. There there is a specification for the memory model, runtime, aso and you can be sure that when you switch between runtimes, it will just work.

Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

#127
Expressing complex HTML or LaTeX constructs in org-mode is more complicated than writing the raw HTML or LaTeX. So for complex things, I'll always fall back to writing HTML or LaTeX directly. Markdown, instead, just falls back to HTML. Whatever I can't express in markdown, I can simply insert the HTML by hand. These markup languages are always fine for simple things, but have a hard time expressing more complicated things.

Perhaps some kind of escape mechanism, like typst, would solve this. But org-mode doesn't.

That said, org-mode-the-program (not org-mode-the-syntax) is just fantastic, and nothing else comes close. For me, this doesn't outweigh its problems. Obsidian is a good-enough alternative.

I've recently converted my blog from org-mode to markdown. 1000 lines of elisp, replaced with 200 lines of Python, and a 50x speedup. Last year, I did the same for my journal. I'm a bit sad to "leave", but it does simplify things.

Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

#128
post #3

We do not need another competing standard here. Markdown is adequate and more importantly widely adopted and growing.

org-mode's first release was in 2003, Markdown apparently in 2004. So not just "yet another standard" And I don't think org-mode's babel features really exist in Markdown? It's more like having python notebooks right in there (any language really).

A) I'm aware and B) so what? Markdown is popular enough now that even people who aren't very technical and don't know that they're reading/writing Markdown are familiar with it. This is incredibly valuable and not something you can replicate through purely technical means, there are so many places where having a ubiquitous way to express in plain text is helpful. Markdown has grown into this role at the same time that the environment developed. You will not be able to recreate this situation.

Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

#129

Expressing complex HTML or LaTeX constructs in org-mode is more complicated than writing the raw HTML or LaTeX. So for complex things, I'll always fall back to writing HTML or LaTeX directly. Markdown, instead, just falls back to HTML. Whatever I can't express in markdown, I can simply insert the HTML by hand. These markup languages are always fine for simple things, but have a hard time expressing more complicated t…

>I've recently converted my blog from org-mode to markdown.

Me too. I went to Jekyll and I thought I'd miss org but it turns out I don't. Plus I still get a slow lisp-like language (ruby) just like elisp.

Org is a neat idea but nothing supports it. You can get a jupyter-like experience with src blocks but have fun sharing it with anyone unless you only interact with other emacs users.

Markdown is merely acceptable, IMHO, but everything supports it, so it's the clear choice in my book.

Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)

#130

Expressing complex HTML or LaTeX constructs in org-mode is more complicated than writing the raw HTML or LaTeX. So for complex things, I'll always fall back to writing HTML or LaTeX directly. Markdown, instead, just falls back to HTML. Whatever I can't express in markdown, I can simply insert the HTML by hand. These markup languages are always fine for simple things, but have a hard time expressing more complicated t…

>I've recently converted my blog from org-mode to markdown. Me too. I went to Jekyll and I thought I'd miss org but it turns out I don't. Plus I still get a slow lisp-like language (ruby) just like elisp. Org is a neat idea but nothing supports it. You can get a jupyter-like experience with src blocks but have fun sharing it with anyone unless you only interact with other emacs users. Markdown is merely acceptable, I…

Its completely trivial to export orgmode to markdown either as a process or just whenever you copy to the clipboard.

Completely trivial isn't a big barrier to interoperation.

Post reply on HN