|
> Sometimes I also wonder why Org Mode is not as popular as Markdown, the former is far more powerful. The reliance on Emacs has been mentioned by a fair number of commenters already, but there's also another issue here, I think -- there are a lot of Markdown variants, and while that's usually described as a flaw rather than a feature, the silver lining is that there probably is a Markdown processor that can handle [thing that you want], from citations to cross-references to math formulas. "But then I'm tied to that variant of Markdown" is a valid objection, but it's not one that's really answered by Org Mode. In practice, some Markdown syntax that started as "non-standard extensions" -- most notably tables and footnotes -- has been widely adopted by most processors. Several processors I know of do have ways to attach labels or other metadata to sections, such as MultiMarkdown's cross-references. > I usually further break down a TODO into several sub-TODOs and write something under each one to organize my thoughts, including code blocks, tables, quotes, footnotes, which is impossible in Markdown. This one I'm not actually sure I'm following. You can certainly insert code blocks, tables, quotes, and footnotes under subheadings and even under indented lists. Org Mode is absolutely better as a task manager and day planner -- but that's not a function of Org Mode's markup syntax, except to the degree the syntax has specific features for supporting tasks and agendas. It's a function of Org Mode being, well, a mode, with a lot of specific functionality in Emacs. For general purpose document markup, it's probably as good as (e.g.) MultiMarkdown, but not better; if you're comfortable with one, there'd be little obvious reason to switch to the other. |
Markdown is plain text at one end of the complexity continuum. Microsoft Word is towards the other end. Org-mode is somewhere in-between.