> However, the article seems to be complaining about how it is used to write websites and articles even when patching the holes in Markdown end up being more of

> However, the article seems to be complaining about how it is used to write websites and articles even when patching the holes in Markdown end up being more of a hassle than just using HTML (that MDN screenshot looks horrible). Anyone using Markdown for such things is using the wrong tool. That's not the fault of or a failing of Markdown. If someone can't differentiate between the improper use of a tool or failings of the tool maybe they need to not make sweeping statements. Where Markdown is superior to simple HTML is it does not encourage the sort of nesting that makes HTML painful as a grammar to parse. The simpler grammar (blocks delineated with newlines) actually makes the semantic meaning of the markup easier to deal with so a processor can emit clearer HTML/LaTeX/whatever.