|
|
|
|
|
by Arainach
1314 days ago
|
|
> reStructuredText makes the same design decision. "This other product that doesn't understand the appeal of Markdown and also thought this was a technical problem rather than a user barrier to entry problem made the same mistake" is not exactly a strong defense. > Sanity. Sanity introduced to an ambiguous spec. It’s wonderful. Users don't care how hard or easy something is to parse. You write a parser once; you write Markdown millions of times. > Looks like it simply makes Markdown easier for both computers and humans! I love this and can’t believe I haven’t seen it before. Unfortunately it does not. This is less readable and more annoying to write: >Markdown: >- Fruits > - apple > - orange > >djot: >- Fruits > > - apple > - orange These are fundamentally different products. If you want something easy to parse and human readable, use YAML. If you want something easy to write, use Markdown. |
|
I know that’s a glib answer. And I agree an extra line break should, to a human which reads indents, be unnecessary. But given the ambiguities of Markdown, something that is both human-readable and computer-readable is a huge advantage.
Also,
> Users don't care how hard or easy something is to parse
I don’t read it as about parsing. I read it as about writing. You can write one way and know exactly how it will be interpreted.