I do not think that is the problem with markdown lol. There are lots of problems with markdown, especially vanilla or the more limited versions of it - but really its super power is that it is readable with a regular text editor (or `cat`) and can be rendered without a compilation step.
replyMarkdown is not competing with latex or typst, it is competing with (and has won against) .txt files
Actually basic typst is as readable as markdown, e.g. this is the example from the webapp:
reply = The Typst Playground
Welcome to the Typst Playground! This is a sandbox where you can experiment with Typst. You can type anywhere in the editor panel on the left. The preview panel to the right will update live.
= Basics <basics>
Typst is a _markup_ language. You use it to express not just the content, but also the structure and formatting of your document. For example, surrounding a word with underscores _emphasizes_ it with italics and starting a line with an equals sign creates a section heading.
Typst has lightweight syntax like this for the most common formatting needs. Among other things, you can use it to:
- *Strongly emphasize* some text
- Refer to @basics
- Typeset math: $a, b in { 1/2, sqrt(4 a b) }$
That's just the surface though! Typst has powerful systems for scripting, styling, introspection, and more. In the realm of a Typst document, there is nothing you can't automate.As I said in a previous comment typst especialy with extending via scripting stops being plain text readable. A Markdown file (whatever flavor it may be) is still fundamentaly one vi,nano, Editor, Notepad++ away from being read with all its context included. It is a tradeoff that for READMES I would not want to make.
replyIf you restrict typat to the basic functionally of markdown it is just as readable as plain text (not surprising considering that typat syntax was inspirered by markdown). However, once we include more unusual things I would argue that markdown becomes more illegible than typst (as for markdown you start adding html essentially).
replyThere have been theoretically precise published specs for serious markdowns for 15 years. The commonmark convention is a common specification for many including e.g the familiar simple github variant, which emphatically does have a completely perfect specification.
replyCommonmark isn't serious because it doesn't include several major quality of life improvements like [^1] for footnote/reference syntax. Pandoc should be the serious "common" markdown standard.
replyOf course it's extensible, you can put HTML in it, and HTML is extensible.
replyThat is like saying "Ruby is not slow, you can write native extensions in C". No, Markdown is not extensible.
reply