[bovermyer]

I gave up using Word to write manuscripts when I switched to Markdown documents in git.

In the last few months, though, I gave up on Markdown to switch to a more robust format - LaTeX. Before I switched, I didn't know LaTeX at all, but I knew from my reading that it had the features I needed.

[ectoplasmaboiii]

I don't know if you're already familiar, but pandoc perfectly bridges this gap for me. You can write things in markdown, then covert it latex no problem with pandoc. You can even make templates for it, and write mathmode in markdown.

It certainly makes for less _noisy_ source files in my opinion, and it also means that you get to take advantage of the fact that, if you want to, you can easily convert your markdown to HTML, with maths using something like mathjax.

This was a bit of a ramble, but I honestly can't say enough nice things about pandoc.

[bovermyer]

I was converting Markdown to PDF with pandoc before I started writing straight LaTeX.

It's worth noting here that I'm writing layout in LaTeX also - like controlling the number of columns, where breaks exist, etc.

[BeetleB]

I hope to see a post from you one day saying "I gave up on LaTeX and switched to org" :-)

Seriously, org has served all my authoring needs for over a decade now. You can export to LaTeX and HTML easily, and now pandoc does a decent job of exporting to other formats. You can embed LaTeX lines in your org document, so you get the full power of LaTeX, without having to write LaTeX for everything. Tables are hellish in LaTeX, and even lists are a pain.

Of course, there is the whole "You have to use Emacs" thing...

[bovermyer]

I've tried to use Emacs a few times before. It just never clicked for me.

And honestly... I enjoy writing LaTeX. The structure just feels really comfortable to me.

[BeetleB]

Oh, I was all about LaTeX for a decade prior to switching to org, so I know the feeling. However, org is just so much more lightweight that I found myself writing/authoring a lot more once I switched. I now often author emails where I need rich text (embedded code with syntax highlighting, tables, etc) in org.

Oh, and I try to do all my presentations in it too - it can export to Beamer.

As for Emacs, I know what you mean. I tried it on and off for 10-11 years before I finally stuck to it. In my case, what helped was that vi/vim really was much worse, so it's not like I had a seriously good alternative. I tired of repeatedly switching editors per task (had one for Python, another for LaTeX, etc). I finally one day said "I need to learn a really good editor and stick to it." I bought the Emacs book, spent a whole week reading it, and forced myself to Google a solution whenever I couldn't remember how to do something. I was surprised how quickly I became proficient in it - within a month of use.

(All without learning elisp - I was a "power" Emacs user for 8-9 years before I learned elisp properly).

And then I discovered org mode. While I've encountered people who were proficient Emacs users but left for something else, I haven't found anyone who is an org mode user who switched to something else. I know people who use other editors in general, but still use Emacs just to use org mode.

[bovermyer]

That's really cool. It sounds like your commitment to learning Emacs mirrored my commitment to LaTeX - didn't know it, but was highly motivated to learn. I love that.

[als0]

FWIW you can use also convert ReStructuredText (RST) to LaTeX. RST is very similar to Markdown, and it provides useful features that are missing. It also renders consistently across different viewers (presumably due to a tight specification). If you're working a lot with tables then you'll really enjoy the ease of the "list table" syntax.

I'd say RST is suitable for many types of documentation but I'm not convinced that it's suitable for conference/workshop submissions.