4 ms·
The comparison to LaTeX is a bit unfair... the latex code is much larger than it needs to, and does things that the quarkdown doesn't (like floating the figure
by enriquto 1y ago
The comparison to LaTeX is a bit unfair... the latex code is much larger than it needs to, and does things that the quarkdown doesn't (like floating the figure in the page).
Once you remove that, both versions look essentially equivalent and just as readable.
- eviks 1y agoIf the sea of backslashes and \begin/end and \includegraphics doesn't disappear, no, latex doesn't look equivalent
- zelphirkalt 1y agoThe words "begin" and "end" are very readable, actually. "includegraphics" as well. Remains the aversion against backslashes. What exactly do you find less readable about them than other symbols like for example the colons or braces in Quarkdown? Or is it about the number of backslashes?
- eviks 1y agoActually, no, if markup takes more space than content, it hurts readability of the content. Especially for such common stuff like images. But if you don't see this obvious barrier, I will unlikely be able to explain the issue with backslashes: it's partially about the number, but also visibility - .period syntax is a smart choice as it's unobtrusive and not part of the regular syntax, and it's more ergonomic to type, so a universal win.