4 ms·
I would argue that it may be a case of "less is more". Yes Markdown is limited, but the limits make the language trivial to learn, modify and understand. It als
by simias 5y ago
I would argue that it may be a case of "less is more". Yes Markdown is limited, but the limits make the language trivial to learn, modify and understand. It also means that the format can be trivially displayed almost anywhere and converted to all sorts of other formats.
There will always be a tradeoff between simplicity and the feature set, I find that for the vast majority of my use cases Markdown is simply good enough.
When I read markdown docs on github I usually get a pleasant sense of familiarity, everybody tends to gravitate towards the same basic layout because that's what Markdown does. That's a feature IMO, it means that you can focus on the content, not waste time parsing the quirky layout.
Monthly reminder that Gopher should've won btw.
- gerikson 5y agoCheck out Gemini, its format is even more limited than Markdown, and it's TLS-native unlike Gopher. Gopher might have won if students had ~/public_gopher directories, but it was not to be...
- unfocussed_mike 5y agoGopher would not and could not have won, for two very good reasons: (Would not) -- it was more complex to implement, being stateful (and it lacked the markup flexibility of HTML, which was kind of a big draw) (Could not) -- the University of Minnesota announced their intention to collect licensing fees on their Gopher server (and client, I think), which was invented there. This was a key moment in the web's development, because as a response CERN disclaimed ownership of web technologies -- under some pressure from IBM, as I recall, and IBM threw their research weight behind HTML/HTTP[0] And that was that, basically. All happened in a few weeks in 1993. (I can't find you a link to a discussion of IBM's action, but I can describe in detail the flashback to a freezing-cold, excesively-air-conditioned Sun SLC workstation lab at the University of Reading where I first read about it) People crushing on Gopher these days do make me smile. Sure, it's like vinyl records. [0] though this is hazy, I think they also made a promise not to assert relevant patents they held
- gerikson 5y agoThanks a lot for expanding. I had no idea IBM was present at the creation, like some spirit of evil ;) Netscape Navigator handling images was also a Big Deal(tm). Of course, there could have been a graphical (X) gopher client that showed images, but just like the people who like gopher and gemini now dislike images, I suspect it was the same then (think of the bandwidth!) It's hard to convey how intensely cool it felt to be part of the early web, and images, differently sized and colored fonts were a big part of it.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago> Thanks a lot for expanding. I had no idea IBM was present at the creation, like some spirit of evil ;) It's not so much at the creation -- it's several years in (four years in for HTML/HTTP). Though it is about when I became aware of it. What I recall of the time is that the web was just becoming a point of research interest, and big firms had product R+D interest. Like I say, I can't find anything to prove my recollection now -- so it could well be wholly unreliable! -- but my specific recollection from damn year 29 years ago is that IBM's response (and likely the response of others) to the Gopher server licence situation was to seek clarification from CERN over their intentions with the web. IBM also had patents (concerning hypermedia) that were relevant but were never asserted. It would always have been Tim Berners-Lee's intention to not assert patents but CERN obviously was his employer. > It's hard to convey how intensely cool it felt Were you in that same workstation lab in Reading, then? Seriously, you had to wear a coat and scarf if you were in one corner...