4 ms·

> actually wastes time because of the "___" and "|" scaffolding required. I think you might be under a mistaken assumption here, because I don't think that thi

> actually wastes time because of the "___" and "|" scaffolding required. I think you might be under a mistaken assumption here, because I don't think that this is factual. The only way I could see your misunderstanding is if you think the quantity of whitespace in markdown tables is important, which it isn't. This is a working md table and it's not harder to make then the equivalent html version |Header one|header two| |---|---| |Column value 1|column value one| |value 2|value two| Etc Wherever what's preferable is another story though. Personally I dislike writing plain html, and would always prefer another template language to generate it, but that's just preference.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> it's not harder to make then the equivalent html version Much easier, I'd say. <table> <tr> <th>Header one</th> <th>header two</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Column value 1</td> <td>column value one</td> </tr> <tr> <td>value two</td> <td>value two</td> </tr> </table>
- 411111111111111 3y ago
  Cleaner? Yes. easier? No. Also note that you haven't actually done the same as my example. You're missing <thead> and <tbody>
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    I don't know. It's easier to remember the html tags and to see if they are correct. In markdown I have to remember the weird punctuation and get the | counts exactly correct.
    - condwanaland 3y ago
      I think this is background and person dependent. I find it easier to remember the markdown syntax than the html tags
      - MrVandemar 3y ago
        HTML is internally consistent. The atom of HTML is the tag. It makes it easier to remember and to learn new ones. Markdown is composed of arbitary punctuation which is harder to remember. For making something bold, there's low friction in wrapping it in asterisks compared to the HTML version. It's fast, easy and works. For making a link, the friction is higher because you have to remember the link/text order, and the link/text punctuation. There's a what, one in four chance of getting it right if you haven't memorised it? It always trips me up and I have to go and look it up. Whereas a link in HTML is pretty much the same format as everything else in HTML. I think Markdown excels for short or limited things that consist of headings, lists and inline formatting, like blog-posts and comments and ReadMes, but I find it doesn't scale well.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
It is much, much harder to maintain a markdown table. You can keep html table cells on separate lines, and have newlines in them. Can't with markdown tables.
- 411111111111111 3y ago
  Now that I can agree on. Thankfully, md accepts inline html, so you can always just fall back to it for tables if you expect modifications in the future. Though for the record, you should bee able to escape newlines with a backslash. That admittedly makes the md table into a total disaster, so not suggesting it as an actual option.

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> it's not harder to make then the equivalent html version Much easier, I'd say. <table> <tr> <th>Header one</th> <th>header two</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Column value 1</td> <td>column value one</td> </tr> <tr> <td>value two</td> <td>value two</td> </tr> </table>

411111111111111 3y ago
Cleaner? Yes. easier? No. Also note that you haven't actually done the same as my example. You're missing <thead> and <tbody>
- hgsgm 3y ago
  I don't know. It's easier to remember the html tags and to see if they are correct. In markdown I have to remember the weird punctuation and get the | counts exactly correct.
  - condwanaland 3y ago
    I think this is background and person dependent. I find it easier to remember the markdown syntax than the html tags
    - MrVandemar 3y ago
      HTML is internally consistent. The atom of HTML is the tag. It makes it easier to remember and to learn new ones. Markdown is composed of arbitary punctuation which is harder to remember. For making something bold, there's low friction in wrapping it in asterisks compared to the HTML version. It's fast, easy and works. For making a link, the friction is higher because you have to remember the link/text order, and the link/text punctuation. There's a what, one in four chance of getting it right if you haven't memorised it? It always trips me up and I have to go and look it up. Whereas a link in HTML is pretty much the same format as everything else in HTML. I think Markdown excels for short or limited things that consist of headings, lists and inline formatting, like blog-posts and comments and ReadMes, but I find it doesn't scale well.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

It is much, much harder to maintain a markdown table. You can keep html table cells on separate lines, and have newlines in them. Can't with markdown tables.

411111111111111 3y ago
Now that I can agree on. Thankfully, md accepts inline html, so you can always just fall back to it for tables if you expect modifications in the future. Though for the record, you should bee able to escape newlines with a backslash. That admittedly makes the md table into a total disaster, so not suggesting it as an actual option.