3 ms·

In my opinion LaTeX is a poor fit for markdown, although it is the logical—and probably the only—choice. Markdown documents are supposed to be easy to read and

In my opinion LaTeX is a poor fit for markdown, although it is the logical—and probably the only—choice. Markdown documents are supposed to be easy to read and quick to type. LaTeX is neither. When I include a matrix in my markdown document I want to type it something like: ## Example Matrix $$$ [a, b; c, d] $$$ Although I realize that we are probably stuck with LaTeX for the foreseeable future as the only way to type math in text files. Disclaimer, I am an author of an alternative math markup language specifically designed to be a good fit in Markdown.

Gimpei 4y ago
I agree. I thought the whole point of markdown was to be simple and readable. At this point, why not just use full latex instead.
alanbernstein 4y ago
I think you're right on all counts, especially on being stuck with LaTeX. What's your language? Any plans to build some sort of translator or other mechanism to allow high-quality rendering based on it?
- runarberg 4y ago
  Thanks for asking... I mentioned it earlier in this thread, and didn’t want to spam it unprompted. But it is called Mathup (https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/ https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/) and I purposely just translated to MathML and with the intention to leave rendering to a different library (e.g. MathJax; or the browser if you’re only targeting Firefox or Safari)
rahimiali 4y ago
the matrix example is a good example of latex being too verbose for its markdown host. \underbrace and \begin{cases} are two others ones that seems antithetical to markdown. and maybe the fact that \left[ and \left( are not the default versions of [ and ( respectively. i'd be interested in collecting more if you can think of them.
- runarberg 4y ago
  I collected some in the doc page for mathup (link in cousin post). Although I’m not sure I tackled \underbrace sufficiently. E.g. This is how I explain up-arrow notion with a mathup expression: obrace(a\`↑↑`b = ubrace(a^a^⋰^a)._(b "times")).^"" "up-arrow" notation "" I don’t think you’ll be able to read this without knowing some of the syntax... which is a failure on my part as author. `obrace` and ubrace` are clear `.^` puts the following expression (a text that works the same way as backticks in markdown) over the preceding expression. `._` does the same but puts it under. and the backslash will make the thing surrounded by backticks (\`↑↑`) an operator. But this is a fairly complected expression. And my goal was never to make every expression look simple. A far more common expression would be easier: a^n = obrace(a xx a xx cdots xx a).^(n "times") which could also be written as: a^n = (a × a × ⋯ × a).^⏞.^(n "times") Regarding cases, in mathup could write: n! = { 1, if n <= 1 (n-1)!, otherwise However the alignment won’t be perfect... I was always going to go back and fix that, but I never got around to do that. Other improvements include, using white space smartly to group things together e.g. (This example also showcases using slash to denote fraction) a/b + c/d != a / b+c / d

Gimpei 4y ago

I agree. I thought the whole point of markdown was to be simple and readable. At this point, why not just use full latex instead.

alanbernstein 4y ago

I think you're right on all counts, especially on being stuck with LaTeX. What's your language? Any plans to build some sort of translator or other mechanism to allow high-quality rendering based on it?

runarberg 4y ago
Thanks for asking... I mentioned it earlier in this thread, and didn’t want to spam it unprompted. But it is called Mathup (https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/ https://runarberg.github.io/mathup/) and I purposely just translated to MathML and with the intention to leave rendering to a different library (e.g. MathJax; or the browser if you’re only targeting Firefox or Safari)

rahimiali 4y ago

the matrix example is a good example of latex being too verbose for its markdown host. \underbrace and \begin{cases} are two others ones that seems antithetical to markdown. and maybe the fact that \left[ and \left( are not the default versions of [ and ( respectively. i'd be interested in collecting more if you can think of them.

runarberg 4y ago
I collected some in the doc page for mathup (link in cousin post). Although I’m not sure I tackled \underbrace sufficiently. E.g. This is how I explain up-arrow notion with a mathup expression: obrace(a\`↑↑`b = ubrace(a^a^⋰^a)._(b "times")).^"" "up-arrow" notation "" I don’t think you’ll be able to read this without knowing some of the syntax... which is a failure on my part as author. `obrace` and ubrace` are clear `.^` puts the following expression (a text that works the same way as backticks in markdown) over the preceding expression. `._` does the same but puts it under. and the backslash will make the thing surrounded by backticks (\`↑↑`) an operator. But this is a fairly complected expression. And my goal was never to make every expression look simple. A far more common expression would be easier: a^n = obrace(a xx a xx cdots xx a).^(n "times") which could also be written as: a^n = (a × a × ⋯ × a).^⏞.^(n "times") Regarding cases, in mathup could write: n! = { 1, if n <= 1 (n-1)!, otherwise However the alignment won’t be perfect... I was always going to go back and fix that, but I never got around to do that. Other improvements include, using white space smartly to group things together e.g. (This example also showcases using slash to denote fraction) a/b + c/d != a / b+c / d