Not only that but Markdown use the conventions people already used in text files (point 3 in the article). People wrote Markdown before Markdown existed, they just formalized it.

In fact, I like to write notes and documentation in text form, and then I notice I have been using Markdown all along, so I rename my text file into .md, fix a couple of markers, and now it looks nice on a viewer that supports markdown, and I have syntax highlighting in my text editor.

> It is missing the #1 reason I like it though - it's fundamentally text.

Sure, but that's table stakes.

There are much better formats: AsciiDoc, reStructuredText, etc. Yet I also primarily use Markdown. I could use a format that's perhaps 20% better, and well-specified. But I'd have to use Markdown somewhere anyway. So I just stick with Markdown. It's good enough for me.

Agreed. I wrote a post about the history and power of plain text in computing here:

Simple and Universal: A History of Plain Text, and Why It Matters

https://amontalenti.com/2016/06/11/simple-and-universal-a-hi...

You might enjoy it!

It's fundamentally ok-ishly looking text.

I think that is the biggest reason why Markdown doesn't support table. There are alternatives that do (e.g. wikitext) but they didn't get as popular as Markdown. Why? Perhaps it's because that tables will never really look fine in pure text no matter how clever your syntax is.

WYSIWYG is #1 reason I believe.

Markdown is fundamentally WYSIWYG - you edit something and you get it rendered 1 to 1. Either in plain text (a.k.a. "source") or when it converted to HTML/CSS and then presented.

WYSIWYG requires 1:1 mapping between "source" and "presentation". Markdown is exactly that. While HTML/CSS is 1:N mapping - same presentation can be achieved with many combinations of HTML/CSS rules. That's why "true WYSIWYG" is barely achievable with HTML/CSS.

Same. I’m reading The UNIX Programming Environment (1984), and it’s made me want to use text for a lot more things. Proprietary formats come and go, but text is forever.

Eh, the things Markdown was made to compete with were also text. Including, you know, plain text. Sure, there were people out there doing README.RTF or README.DOC that annoyed us all -- nevermind those README.PDF monsters -- but just as frequently it was README.TXT or READ.ME (or README.DOC was in plain text). And GameFAQs and newsgroups got pretty far with plain text and ASCII graphics.

The problem is that people want to use a web browser to display their documents, they want rich documents, and web browsers are awful at displaying text they don't understand the structure for. And <code> tags look consistently awful when read back, which is why we so strongly prefer syntax highlighting when we read XML or HTML.

Really, the big competition was BBCode, whose main problem is that it's too much like HTML, and Wikitext, whose main problem was that it's too bare-bones and domain-specific. The big advantages of Markdown are:

1. It's simply more readable. It pulls from how people were naturally formatting plain-text documents meant to be read as plain text rather than pulling from markup languages, so it more closely matches how people want to write documents in plain text. That makes the document easy to read while you're writing it. Asterisks for highlighting is an old convention, so were dashes and asterisks for bullets. Really, it made the asterisk an English punctuation mark for emphasis, which I think it genuinely is now.

2. It was easy to parse and short, which made it popular with Web 2.0 social media. It got picked up by Slashdot, Reddit, and Stack Overflow as "good enough" and "better than BBCode" for user generated content. Nobody liked using WYSIWYG editor boxes then, either. They were slow, buggy, and were often Flash-based before HTML5. They needed plain text formatting options, and BBCode was both annoyingly unnatural to type (just like HTML tags) and a little inflexible.

And nobody wanted to repeat MySpace and just let users use HTML. That was a horrible idea (Samy, XSS, etc.).

Amen. Biggest reason I love Obsidian so much; it's like an operating system for markdown.

Yes. Something as handy and universally applicable as HTML minus the tags.

If you only use headlines and bulletpoints, I have a very pleasing result for a simple text file.

Except there's a massive lack of Markdown VIEWERS. You find MD files in every open-source project and lots of other places, but almost no viewers that render them as intended. So you wind up looking at them as plain text, with a bunch of formatting characters in them. What's the point, then?

Only just now has Windows Notepad been revised to render Markdown (I think it does now, anyway). And after searching for a Mac one I finally bought Marked. But that's all I could find. Otherwise you have to load MD files in some kind of editor and "preview" them. NO! I just want to double-click on the file and READ it, with the formatting applied. Why is that so hard?

I mean markdown existed, but before that there's like... whatever format phpbb and friends let you use for forum posts right? There was stuff that was text-y.

But perhaps it was the first big format that was followed a Unix-y "here's a CLI tool to go to HTML from this" thing, instead of some php script

So is HTML and XML and bbcode...

The question is more why Markdown is slowly but surely outcompeting them.