Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are we still using Markdown?

bgslabs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 328 posts

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#71

Post by jbritton »

I strongly dislike flexible input like __Unambiguous___, *Unambiguous*

I’m reminded of the time Microsoft allowed mistakes in html writing. They attempted to parse a wide variety of common user errors. The effect of this was no standard and nobody else able to write a Microsoft compatible parser.

I dislike Nim lang because of this. At least Nim defined the specification. Still though I think it creates more cognitive load learning every legal variation and it makes searching more difficult.

I think to authors point if Markdown actually had a strict simple definition with one way to do it and no embedded html we would be better off.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#72

Post by smahs »

Arainach wrote: post #68
vbezhenar wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HTML is valid markdown. So I'm not sure how you make oppose markdown and XML. XML is basically a subset of markdown. This is *valid* *Mark* _down_ Markdown basically adds a whole layer of complexity upon HTML.

If you're writing things like that in Markdown files (without being escaped in code blocks as HTML syntax examples), you're doing it wrong.

Not wrong, perhaps a little weird. HTML is a first class citizen in the commonmark (spec)[https://spec.commonmark.org/0.31.2/#html-blocks].

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#73

Post by Arainach »

smahs wrote: post #72
Arainach wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're writing things like that in Markdown files (without being escaped in code blocks as HTML syntax examples), you're doing it wrong.

Not wrong, perhaps a little weird. HTML is a first class citizen in the commonmark (spec)[ https://spec.commonmark.org/0.31.2/#html-blocks ].

"Wrong" does not necessarily mean "against the standard". It means "against common usage and good team practice" in this context.

It's "allowed" to use raw pointers, malloc, and any number of things in C++ code. In general, if you do any of them in a modern codebase you're doing it wrong.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#74

Post by mkldd »

xigoi wrote: post #64
mh- wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> compared to other markup languages I think it would be easier for me to appreciate your comment if you named some of these other languages. Markdown is the only standardized one I regularly come across that I type by hand, these days. What are you contrasting to? As for Markdown specifically- the only thing I regularly mix up is the syntax for links. I frequently reverse the [] and (). But that's just because I don…

> I think it would be easier for me to appreciate your comment if you named some of these other languages. HTML? Also my markup language I created for myself, which is currently not published.

[flagged]

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#75

Post by nostrademons »

reaperducer wrote: post #52
nostrademons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth remembering that markdown tried very hard to encode conventions that were already used in Usenet, email, and other text media. A > to indicate a quote was widespread Usenet convention. Asterisks or underscores to indicate emphasis was also a common convention; both are legal because both were common. Double asterisk or double underscores to indicate really, really emphasizing something was also a comm…

markdown tried very hard to encode conventions that were already used in Usenet, email, and other text media For those of you who weren't there: *bold* _underline_ ~strikethrough~ /italics/ > Quotation - list - list - list I've been using these for almost half a century. They're much easier and more intuitive than Markdown. I see no compelling reason to change.

Your quotation and list syntax should work out of the box in most Markdown flavors (HN has a very non-standard and crippled version - basically nothing other than italics, paragraphs, and code/preformatting works.)

Strikethrough and bold are doubled to avoid common ambiguities. Your underline should technically work, but it comes out as an (emphasis) tag, which is rendered as italics in most browsers.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#76

Post by dingaling »

reaperducer wrote: post #52
nostrademons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth remembering that markdown tried very hard to encode conventions that were already used in Usenet, email, and other text media. A > to indicate a quote was widespread Usenet convention. Asterisks or underscores to indicate emphasis was also a common convention; both are legal because both were common. Double asterisk or double underscores to indicate really, really emphasizing something was also a comm…

markdown tried very hard to encode conventions that were already used in Usenet, email, and other text media For those of you who weren't there: *bold* _underline_ ~strikethrough~ /italics/ > Quotation - list - list - list I've been using these for almost half a century. They're much easier and more intuitive than Markdown. I see no compelling reason to change.

But Usenet style didn't have a trendy name, an 'inventor' or Github stars. So it didn't exist.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#77

Post by frizlab »

Arainach wrote: post #27

Somewhat related past discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41120254 Copying my thoughts from there which haven't changed: >To which I say, are you really going to avoid using a good tool just because it makes you puke? Because looking at it makes your stomach churn? Because it offends every fiber of your being?" Yes. A thousand times yes. Because the biggest advantage of Markdown is that it's easy to read…

There are other solutions which are as easy to read/write (if not more) and which are defined much better… Asciidoc comes to mind.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#78

Post by BoredPositron »

sophacles wrote: post #49
BoredPositron wrote: post #12

You can say hell on your own blog.

Interestingly, you can also choose not to say it on your own blog.

Why the heck would you use the phrase "Why the heck" in any circumstance other than to avoid censorship/algorithmic penality on a social media platform?

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#79

Post by Arainach »

frizlab wrote: post #77
Arainach wrote: post #27

Somewhat related past discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41120254 Copying my thoughts from there which haven't changed: >To which I say, are you really going to avoid using a good tool just because it makes you puke? Because looking at it makes your stomach churn? Because it offends every fiber of your being?" Yes. A thousand times yes. Because the biggest advantage of Markdown is that it's easy to read…

There are other solutions which are as easy to read/write (if not more) and which are defined much better… Asciidoc comes to mind.

"Better specified" doesn't mean better. A bunch of features doesn't mean better.

Markdown is popular because it is simple. I have never had to teach anyone Markdown. They look at the file and immediately see what's going on and can copy the style.

Occasionally someone may have to look up something like table syntax, but no one in my career or personal life has ever asked me to explain Markdown to them, which is rare for a technology that is so widely used.

This has not been my experience with other markup languages.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#80

Post by packetlost »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #55
nostrademons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth remembering that markdown tried very hard to encode conventions that were already used in Usenet, email, and other text media. A > to indicate a quote was widespread Usenet convention. Asterisks or underscores to indicate emphasis was also a common convention; both are legal because both were common. Double asterisk or double underscores to indicate really, really emphasizing something was also a comm…

Stepped right on the rake though because it uses sigils which were common, but requires they be used in uncommon ways (by doubling etc) which it why most chat UIs don't actually use markdown

Somehow basically only Discord gets it almost perfectly right though.
Post reply on HN