4 ms·

I'm an author and an software engineer. I can see why Markdown could be slightly better for a writer - but not much better - and honestly it seems like a step d

I'm an author and an software engineer. I can see why Markdown could be slightly better for a writer - but not much better - and honestly it seems like a step down for an editor. Primarily, all a writer does is write plain text. Probably less than 1% of sentences are anything other than plain text. There's not a lot of headings or titles. There's not a lot of italics or bold text. What else is there? What am I missing? What's the benefit?

michaericalribo 6y ago
Ha! This is a really interesting perspective—I think you're saying, "it's all plain text, so there's no advantage to using Markdown instead of docx". I think others have an opposite view, but on the same grounds. The argument seems to be: it's all plain text, so docx is overkill, so markdown is more technically efficient! There's some benefit to using the tool I know best (emacs, for me), so it's nice to use a "native" format that also gives me my usual keybindings, macros, etc. But there's no doubt it just offloads the inefficiency to a different step of the process. I'm more comfortable with inputting text, but it requires post-hoc reformatting, and I'd have to use a different word processor for post-editor changes... The "markdown is a more efficient solution from a technical perspective" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight with me...the practical overhead of docx is minimal, so unless you prize technical purity over all else, I don't think there _is_ a benefit.
- eslaught 6y ago
  The benefit is the rest of the pure text toolchain. Like being able to use Git. I can confirm, for example, how long a typo has existed in my book by looking at the Git history. Maybe that's a bit academic, but you get the point. I have the complete history of everything I've ever written. Another example: because formatting is reified in Markdown, I can grep for it. Did I misuse italics? With one command I can find every single place where I used italics in my entire book. I don't think you can even do that in Word. Good luck reading a multi-hundred page manuscript to find all of the places you may have made the same mistake. Another example: Word provides styles, but honestly, who has discipline to use them? Most people I know manually insert page breaks, centered text, and X number blank spaces at the top of a page to make a new chapter. In Markdown, all of my markup gets converted into Word styles automatically and then I can create a reference doc to apply the style I want. I'm writing semantically correct styles in my documents all the time with no additional effort.
  - michaericalribo 6y ago
    Well, to be fair, MS Word maintains a full history of every edit that was made. And, find-and-replace for specific formatting is supported out-of-the-box. Finally, cmd-i / cmd-u / cmd-b are pretty easy default bindings, and setting up shortcuts for more intricate, specific styles is straightforward in Word. I share your preference for using an efficient tool—I'm a die-hard md+git practitioner. But the "most people I know" argument is not a good basis for rejecting real, rich features in software that works well for other people. I am also curious: why do you care about semantic correctness? It's OK if that's just your preference, but it's not something that moves the needle for me....I'm not sure why I should care! (edit to add: my comment sounds glib and a little sharper that I intended. That wasn't my intent!)
    - aeroevan 6y ago
      > MS Word maintains a full history of every edit that was made This is only true while track changes is on, correct? Like can I see the state of a docx as I was writing it last month/year?
      - michaericalribo 6y ago
        I don't use Word so I can't say! But if you cared about the history, why wouldn't you always turn them on by default? "Full history" in git is also an opt-in model for maintaining a history...
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - eslaught 6y ago
      I think version history doesn't work the way you think. It seems to be supported when you use Microsoft's cloud storage product (which I do not use): > Version history in Office only works for files stored in OneDrive or SharePoint in Microsoft 365. > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/view-previous-versions-of-office-files-5c1e076f-a9c9-41b8-8ace-f77b9642e2c2 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/view-previous-ver... Or alternatively you can sort of hack it with track changes, but it's not automatic and there is a long list of caveats. In short, track changes is really intended for a single round of changes on top of a base document, not for permanently tracking the changes on a document over its entire lifetime: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/view-previous-versions-of-office-files-5c1e076f-a9c9-41b8-8ace-f77b9642e2c2 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/view-previous-ver... Now maybe a Word expert will come along and tell me how to do it properly. :-) But even if they do that sort of proves my point, which is that Word is a large, complex piece of software and even if it hypothetically supports some feature, doesn't make it intuitive or easy to use in that way. (Or that you won't hit a bunch of corner cases when you try to use it.) I do stand corrected about the find-replace formatting, so thanks for that. But on the other hand, I don't think it really contradicts my point either. To be clear, I do think Word serves its user base! For low- to moderate- tech savvy users, it's does exactly what it needs to. And I'm not saying everyone should switch to Markdown. But for those of us who have the technical chops to go beyond it, there are some real advantages to working with other tools that shouldn't be discounted.
socialdemocrat 6y ago
You just sold everyone on markdown. This is the whole point. All the crap MS Word adds to support formatting and visual styles is in the way. With markdown you focus on the actual text. Exactly what an author should want to. What exactly does MS Word add over markdown which matters to an author? I am talking about the writing experience. You could always export to docx.
- citizenkeen 6y ago
  Why would I want to write my first draft in a different tool than my subsequent drafts? Nobody cares about visual styles, but my editor sends back their thoughts with inline edits and comments in Word. It's so much easier to edit in Word. I'm a huge Markdown fan, but it raises the question: What does Markdown get me that makes it worth switching to for the first draft only?
  - michaericalribo 6y ago
    From your parent's comment, I think this is the key statement: > what an author should want That is normative / prescriptive attitude, and seems to gatekeep who gets called "an author." On the other hand, I think the biggest challenges most writers have is getting words on (digital) paper, regardless of the software. I am also unconvinced that there are any practical benefits (for me) to using Markdown in particular, instead of whatever is closest to hand and offers the least friction...use what works for you!
  - em-bee 6y ago
    i am probably the wrong person to respond because the reason i prefer a plain text editor is that that's what i have been using for all my work until now. i am not yet there in the process, but i won't be using plain text/markdown just for the first draft. when i get back that word documents with comments from the editor, i'll look at that like a read-only copy, and actually make the required edits in that same plain text editor. while it may be easier to make edits right in place in the word document, it is easier (for me at least) to keep a history of changes with plain text documents. otherwise i'd agree with you. if you are going to end up editing in word, may as well start with editing in word. for me the goal is to avoid using word/libreoffice at all.
wyclif 6y ago
I write books in Vim. The way I work is that I do it all in plaintext until the final edit. Only after that do I add formatting (could be .docx or Markdown or whatever the editor expects).
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  What happens when your editor requests changes? How are those edits communicated to you, and how do you integrate them back into plaintext? (Serious question—a big pain point for me is the choice between using my preferred tool to start, then switching to a bad tool later; or, using a bad tool the entire time)
  - wyclif 6y ago
    All edits in plaintext on both sides until the final draft. Yes, I know this isn't the standard way of doing things but it isn't so much because I'm a Vim cultist or anything. It's only because I can yank, insert, and navigate the text so much faster than with something like Pages, MS Word, or Scrivener. Another way that seems to work well for some writers and editors is a shared Google Doc.
TeaDrunk 6y ago
This sounds silly but as an author myself it's extremely important that I know what the story looks like to a final reader while I write it. It's like dogfooding my own prose. Too many short paragraphs, or too many long ones, or strange gaps, etc. are much more evident to me in docx or scrivener or any other text processor. I could never get over Markdown; Markdown doesn't show me the user experience of my own code(writing), while word and scrivener will show me instantly.
SamuelAdams 6y ago
Consider a book like The Lord of the Rings. It has gone through countless revisions and corrections. With markdown and git you could track those changes and corrections over time.
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  Yes, you or I could...but Tolkien was much busier writing and world-building, and I seriously doubt George Allen & Unwin (the publishers) would have acceded to conditions on how the manuscript was sent to them!
  - onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
    Also - doesn't MS Word have revision history?
bjoli 6y ago
My favourite talk on this topic is "Emacs for writers": https://youtu.be/FtieBc3KptU https://youtu.be/FtieBc3KptU If you are working with plain text, use something that excels at working with text. I saw another of his talks, and how he works in Emacs is amazing.

michaericalribo 6y ago

Ha! This is a really interesting perspective—I think you're saying, "it's all plain text, so there's no advantage to using Markdown instead of docx". I think others have an opposite view, but on the same grounds. The argument seems to be: it's all plain text, so docx is overkill, so markdown is more technically efficient! There's some benefit to using the tool I know best (emacs, for me), so it's nice to use a "native" format that also gives me my usual keybindings, macros, etc. But there's no doubt it just offloads the inefficiency to a different step of the process. I'm more comfortable with inputting text, but it requires post-hoc reformatting, and I'd have to use a different word processor for post-editor changes... The "markdown is a more efficient solution from a technical perspective" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight with me...the practical overhead of docx is minimal, so unless you prize technical purity over all else, I don't think there _is_ a benefit.

eslaught 6y ago
The benefit is the rest of the pure text toolchain. Like being able to use Git. I can confirm, for example, how long a typo has existed in my book by looking at the Git history. Maybe that's a bit academic, but you get the point. I have the complete history of everything I've ever written. Another example: because formatting is reified in Markdown, I can grep for it. Did I misuse italics? With one command I can find every single place where I used italics in my entire book. I don't think you can even do that in Word. Good luck reading a multi-hundred page manuscript to find all of the places you may have made the same mistake. Another example: Word provides styles, but honestly, who has discipline to use them? Most people I know manually insert page breaks, centered text, and X number blank spaces at the top of a page to make a new chapter. In Markdown, all of my markup gets converted into Word styles automatically and then I can create a reference doc to apply the style I want. I'm writing semantically correct styles in my documents all the time with no additional effort.
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  Well, to be fair, MS Word maintains a full history of every edit that was made. And, find-and-replace for specific formatting is supported out-of-the-box. Finally, cmd-i / cmd-u / cmd-b are pretty easy default bindings, and setting up shortcuts for more intricate, specific styles is straightforward in Word. I share your preference for using an efficient tool—I'm a die-hard md+git practitioner. But the "most people I know" argument is not a good basis for rejecting real, rich features in software that works well for other people. I am also curious: why do you care about semantic correctness? It's OK if that's just your preference, but it's not something that moves the needle for me....I'm not sure why I should care! (edit to add: my comment sounds glib and a little sharper that I intended. That wasn't my intent!)
  - aeroevan 6y ago
    > MS Word maintains a full history of every edit that was made This is only true while track changes is on, correct? Like can I see the state of a docx as I was writing it last month/year?
    - michaericalribo 6y ago
      I don't use Word so I can't say! But if you cared about the history, why wouldn't you always turn them on by default? "Full history" in git is also an opt-in model for maintaining a history...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - eslaught 6y ago
    I think version history doesn't work the way you think. It seems to be supported when you use Microsoft's cloud storage product (which I do not use): > Version history in Office only works for files stored in OneDrive or SharePoint in Microsoft 365. > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/view-previous-versions-of-office-files-5c1e076f-a9c9-41b8-8ace-f77b9642e2c2 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/view-previous-ver... Or alternatively you can sort of hack it with track changes, but it's not automatic and there is a long list of caveats. In short, track changes is really intended for a single round of changes on top of a base document, not for permanently tracking the changes on a document over its entire lifetime: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/view-previous-versions-of-office-files-5c1e076f-a9c9-41b8-8ace-f77b9642e2c2 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/view-previous-ver... Now maybe a Word expert will come along and tell me how to do it properly. :-) But even if they do that sort of proves my point, which is that Word is a large, complex piece of software and even if it hypothetically supports some feature, doesn't make it intuitive or easy to use in that way. (Or that you won't hit a bunch of corner cases when you try to use it.) I do stand corrected about the find-replace formatting, so thanks for that. But on the other hand, I don't think it really contradicts my point either. To be clear, I do think Word serves its user base! For low- to moderate- tech savvy users, it's does exactly what it needs to. And I'm not saying everyone should switch to Markdown. But for those of us who have the technical chops to go beyond it, there are some real advantages to working with other tools that shouldn't be discounted.

socialdemocrat 6y ago

You just sold everyone on markdown. This is the whole point. All the crap MS Word adds to support formatting and visual styles is in the way. With markdown you focus on the actual text. Exactly what an author should want to. What exactly does MS Word add over markdown which matters to an author? I am talking about the writing experience. You could always export to docx.

citizenkeen 6y ago
Why would I want to write my first draft in a different tool than my subsequent drafts? Nobody cares about visual styles, but my editor sends back their thoughts with inline edits and comments in Word. It's so much easier to edit in Word. I'm a huge Markdown fan, but it raises the question: What does Markdown get me that makes it worth switching to for the first draft only?
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  From your parent's comment, I think this is the key statement: > what an author should want That is normative / prescriptive attitude, and seems to gatekeep who gets called "an author." On the other hand, I think the biggest challenges most writers have is getting words on (digital) paper, regardless of the software. I am also unconvinced that there are any practical benefits (for me) to using Markdown in particular, instead of whatever is closest to hand and offers the least friction...use what works for you!
- em-bee 6y ago
  i am probably the wrong person to respond because the reason i prefer a plain text editor is that that's what i have been using for all my work until now. i am not yet there in the process, but i won't be using plain text/markdown just for the first draft. when i get back that word documents with comments from the editor, i'll look at that like a read-only copy, and actually make the required edits in that same plain text editor. while it may be easier to make edits right in place in the word document, it is easier (for me at least) to keep a history of changes with plain text documents. otherwise i'd agree with you. if you are going to end up editing in word, may as well start with editing in word. for me the goal is to avoid using word/libreoffice at all.

wyclif 6y ago

I write books in Vim. The way I work is that I do it all in plaintext until the final edit. Only after that do I add formatting (could be .docx or Markdown or whatever the editor expects).

michaericalribo 6y ago
What happens when your editor requests changes? How are those edits communicated to you, and how do you integrate them back into plaintext? (Serious question—a big pain point for me is the choice between using my preferred tool to start, then switching to a bad tool later; or, using a bad tool the entire time)
- wyclif 6y ago
  All edits in plaintext on both sides until the final draft. Yes, I know this isn't the standard way of doing things but it isn't so much because I'm a Vim cultist or anything. It's only because I can yank, insert, and navigate the text so much faster than with something like Pages, MS Word, or Scrivener. Another way that seems to work well for some writers and editors is a shared Google Doc.

TeaDrunk 6y ago

This sounds silly but as an author myself it's extremely important that I know what the story looks like to a final reader while I write it. It's like dogfooding my own prose. Too many short paragraphs, or too many long ones, or strange gaps, etc. are much more evident to me in docx or scrivener or any other text processor. I could never get over Markdown; Markdown doesn't show me the user experience of my own code(writing), while word and scrivener will show me instantly.

SamuelAdams 6y ago

Consider a book like The Lord of the Rings. It has gone through countless revisions and corrections. With markdown and git you could track those changes and corrections over time.

michaericalribo 6y ago
Yes, you or I could...but Tolkien was much busier writing and world-building, and I seriously doubt George Allen & Unwin (the publishers) would have acceded to conditions on how the manuscript was sent to them!
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
  Also - doesn't MS Word have revision history?

bjoli 6y ago

My favourite talk on this topic is "Emacs for writers": https://youtu.be/FtieBc3KptU https://youtu.be/FtieBc3KptU If you are working with plain text, use something that excels at working with text. I saw another of his talks, and how he works in Emacs is amazing.