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

311–320 of 328 posts

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#311

Post by NetMageSCW »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #178

I always advocate for XML. While Markdown is like "a car in any color as long as it's black", XML is a) exactly what you need and b) as precise as you need it, and also c) not more precise than necessary. We all need headers and paragraphs, right. But I might want file listings. Or command-line snippets with my own color coding and marks. Or C declarations and precise references to them in text. Or todos. Or bibliogr…

So format your post in Markdown and in XML and ask your grandmother to read them. (I assume she isn’t Grace Hopper.)

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#312

Post by NetMageSCW »

jbritton wrote: post #71

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…

Why does flexible input bother you? There’s more than one way to do it is more than motto, it’s how all human languages work. Or does speaking English really bother you?

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#313

Post by NetMageSCW »

krapp wrote: post #84
dbacar wrote: post #69

Markdown is for us humans. HTML is for machines. Per keyboard stroke, you write much more content with MD than HTML. Even without a specific browser/reader Markdown is relatively non-intrusive to read. You cant read HTML without an extra tool/effort to discard tags. And you can parse MD with regular expressions, or can you? ;). (tip hat to infamous Stackoverflow discussion)

If HTML were for machines it would be a binary format. It's text so it's meant for humans to read and write, and humans did both for years without it being a problem.

Trained humans can read and write HTML. Untrained humans can read and then write Markdown.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#314

Post by NetMageSCW »

qayxc wrote: post #191
daft_pink wrote: post #35

Markdown is essentially plain text with a couple extra features. I think Markdown’s basic appeal is that it’s plain text.

That applies to XML, AsciiDoc, LaTex, ReStructuredText, and all the others as well. Apparent simplicity seems to be the most appealing factor, IMHO.

Readability as well.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#316

Post by NetMageSCW »

eviks wrote: post #230
shevy-java wrote: post #161

> These 2 produce IDENTICAL output. And this is just the tip of the iceberg? > It has so many poor decisions baked in that if you try to use it it will actively fight against you the moment you think you know what you’re doing. That misses the point. The point of Markdown is simplicity, not perfection. And that is also the reason why Markdown will prevail.

This also misses the point: multiple syntax markers for the same thing is the opposite of simplicity (though that's not the reason why Markdown will fail)

You have the wrong end of the stick. The point is simplicity for the user, not the developer of the parser. And for users, having two ways to get the same thing adds no complexity- they just pick one and use it.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#317

Post by NetMageSCW »

BoredPositron wrote: post #78
sophacles wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because being consistent helps prevent mistakes in circumstances where use of regular curse words is contraindicated. And why the fork should you care?

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#319

Post by zelphirkalt »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #304
zelphirkalt wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying, that it is the best compromise we know of is going a little far, I think. There are more readable intuitive formats, but they simply don't have the spread, that markdown formats have.

Why do you think that is?

Because I think, that there are other formats, whose formatting rules are more intuitive than Markdown's formatting rules. For example:

    (1) I can never remember, whether I need to use [] or () first, when embedding an image. In Org mode syntax one simply uses [] for both parts.
    (2) Or whether ** is bold or italic or * is bold or italic. Other formats use the well known / to mean italic, which optically already makes more sense and also doesn't interfere with something being bold or not, because it is a separate symbol. This makes Markdown also harder to parse btw..

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#320

Post by johannesrexx »

mcv wrote: post #197
reaperducer wrote: post #52

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.

Like Typst does ;-)
Post reply on HN