Why are we still using Markdown? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#211

Post by solarkraft » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:17 AM UTC

somat wrote: post #150

It is because the primary target for markdown is what would in any other formatting language be the source. Markdown has no source. It is guidelines for good looking plain text layout that when followed can be used to make a typeset document. Everybody sort of knows it sucks as a formatting language. But we love it anyway. The benefit of being able to get a typeset document from a nice looking plaintext document is j…

> Why would you target something as shitty as markdown if you have a specialized editor?

Because Markdown is the standard text formatting language. It’s the format everybody works in.

> But really, if you at all care about the semantics of your document don't write it in markdown

But it’s the standard text formatting language everybody uses.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#212

Post by itmitica » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:21 AM UTC

Why aren't you quietly stop using Markdown?

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#213

Post by amai » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:23 AM UTC

The Pandoc Markdown dialect solves many of the mentioned issues. If you want a good editor for that have a look at

https://www.zettlr.com/

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#214

Post by amai » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:26 AM UTC

GZGavinZhao wrote: post #195

As always, honorable mention to Typst [0] as a good balance between the readability & simplicity of Markdown with the flexibility & composability of LaTeX. I think and hoping that Typst will be the future, but for now I'm happy with Markdown. [0]: https://typst.app

From typst one cannot really create HTML, which makes typst unsuitable for online publishing.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#215

Post by bityard » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:27 AM UTC

je42 wrote: post #180

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…

Writing mark down linter, i am i nterested in - if you think that you requirements for markdown formatting could be encoded in (relatively) simple rules?

Check out commonmark

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#216

Post by bronlund » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:30 AM UTC

Yokohiii wrote: post #141

jdefr89 wrote: post #115

A few things here. 1. Use a proper Markdown parser. The grammar is easy to define EBNF style most implementations I see now days use some recursive descent parser, etc… Regex implementation was used in original authors parser when it became popular. 2. You can resolve ambiguities and define more consistent symbols that make sense. Most markdown implementations are decent and follow common sense best practice syntax.…

I recently tried to create markdown like parser, I had to refer a lot to common marks. What I saw was madness. I never knew from casual use, that markdown is so complex. There is literally zero thought about parsing, it forces natural looking text into a format that can be structured into actual markup, but it has so many pitfalls and edge cases that it just feels wrong. Each time I've looked up another markdown pars…

Because Markdown is made for humans, not for machines.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#217

Post by danieljanes » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:55 AM UTC

We're not "still" using Markdown, we're only getting started.

Markdown is only going to get more popular as AI agents usage grows.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#218

Post by TiredOfLife » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 11:00 AM UTC

alpaca128 wrote: post #111

BeetleB wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of a lot of potentially false things in the statement. The biggest falsehood likely is the perception that one needs Emacs. :-)

You kind of do need Emacs though, as far as I know it is the only existing fully compatible implementation. As soon as the file is outside that environment, all bets are off. I tried using org-mode instead of Markdown once, not for long.

In that case you can't write markdown without Obsidian.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#219

Post by xigoi » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 11:08 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #184

xigoi wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I were not that lazy, i would come up with something opposite to CommonMark, some MarkDownDown, that does away with alternative ways to format things, most escaping, and most advanced syntax. https://djot.net/

It makes quite a few right calls, but still tries to not be a strict subset of Markdown, requiring e.g. a different editing mode.

Being a strict subset of Markdown would make it itpossible to achieve simplicity. From the rationale:

> Rules for emphasis should be simpler. The fact that doubled characters are used for strong emphasis in commonmark leads to many potential ambiguities, which are resolved by a daunting list of 17 rules. It is hard to form a good mental model of these rules. Most of the time they interpret things the way a human would most naturally interpret them---but not always.

Re: Why are we still using Markdown?

#220

Post by aquafox » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 11:09 AM UTC

As someone who has written his PhD thesis in LaTeX, I wish Markdown, or more specifically Quarto, would have existed at that time. Spent too mich time setting up basic stuff that is now just 2 pre-defines styles away.