Live data from Hacker News

Why are we still using Markdown?

bgslabs.org

231–240 of 328 posts

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#231
I used to write raw HTML for my blog because I needed more formatting and structural power than what Markdown could provide for Jekyll. Then I built my own little blog generator that uses Markdown and which pre-substitutes my own hacky syntax elements for the extras I need.

And this is what Markdown is for: its just enough above plain text such that you can get at least 95% of what you need for a blog post, whilst still have the source be easy to type and proof read.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#232
post #3

Because, like UNIX/Linux itself, worse is better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better - and perfect is the enemy of "good enough." We want to encourage people to produce written output with minimal friction. Barriers to writing--and especially barriers to producing documentation--should be minimized. Writing well is difficult enough! Markup is overhead. Complex markup is even more overhead. Markdown is the…

> We want to encourage people to produce written output with minimal friction. Barriers to writing--and especially barriers to producing documentation--should be minimized. Writing well is difficult enough!

What about something like AsciiDoc (or reStructuredText)?

* https://docs.asciidoctor.org/asciidoc/latest/asciidoc-vs-mar...

* "Markdown, Asciidoc, or reStructuredText – a tale of docs-as-code": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33468213

Simply things are still simple, but there seem to be more advanced options for those that want/need them.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#233
Not sure I caught the author’s use case, but Markdown shines in the document space when you’re the author and user. It’s efficient and sufficient—lowest common denominator of ease of writing and formatting basic text.

And I say this while putting up with lousy Markdown rendering on a pet project (Django). Really needs a separate project which lets you massage the html to get the display looking it’s best.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#234
If we're going to define a programming language as one that is Turing complete, it's important (in a kind of pedantic sense) to note that that includes HTML (with CSS), which can be used to encode a Rule 110 automaton, and excludes C, whose standard imposes an (implementation-defined) upper bound on accessible memory, meaning it can never, even in principle†, similarly a Turing machine, which has infinite storage. This is probably not what was intended :)

† Obviously, for physical reasons given our current understanding of cosmology, no _implementation_ of a language can ever really be Turing-complete, but some language definitions are theoretically compatible with Turing-completeness, and others aren't.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#236
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, * asterisks * for italic has always felt wrong to me. I can understand underscores if slashes cause confusion with file paths. *bold* and _italic_ would have been better.

I agree that using *asterisks* just feels wrong for italics, and are much better suited for bold. However, surely the _underscore_ is just perfect to visually indicate underlining?

As for /slashes/, which would visually be perfect for italics, the only reason they conflict between italics and filepaths is the fact that in both cases they are expected to be used at the beginning and end of a word. Maybe using an unnatural placement of )parentheses( could have worked as a non-conflicting indicator of italics.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

GitHub stars weren't a thing when Markdown was roughly codified. Was GitHub even around then?

Git wasn't even around.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#240
post #198

https://djot.net/ seems to be very sane and still very similar to markdown. And after reading the CommonMark spec, I appreciate the saneness very much. CommonMark did a great job at describing all the rules and edge cases, but it clearly shows how messy markdown is. What do you all think of Djot?

too little (preserves weird whitespace semantics requiring extra newlines, non-obvious _under_ for /italics/ markers, confusing multitude of link syntax, too many and too few list markers (why isn't • allowed?) too late? But would've been a great start instead of the aborted markdown attempt back then...
Post reply on HN