noted VS pandoc

This is really cool. I am endlessly fascinated by the proliferation of "productivity apps" when I find the same thing as you: that they are quite unnecessary.

My approach is similar. I already take notes via a Bash script. I configure a particular "label" for any todos and (essentially) just grep for them, excluding those that are crossed out (with Markdown tildes). This approach works great for me as a Staff Engineer in a large tech company. Reference: https://github.com/scottashipp/noted/blob/main/subcommands.m...

I also wanted to mention there are several related ideas / movements around the web. One of the biggest is todotxt. In case you hadn't heard of it: https://github.com/todotxt/todo.txt

I have created my own note-taking tool after experimenting with all of the different note-taking apps for many years.

It's a shell script.

If interested: https://github.com/scottashipp/noted/

Speaking of which, the documentation has been improved, so take a peak at the README file.

I actually have set up both of the main text editors I use, IntelliJ IDEA and TextMate, with the same template that my Noted cli uses to produce time-stamped note entries.

What is that "n?" As I mentioned, I use a lightweight cli called Noted which is nothing more than a simple shell script. The alias for noted in my shell is n, to cut down on keystrokes.

My main authoring tool is then Emacs Markdown Mode (https://jblevins.org/projects/markdown-mode/). For data entry, it comes with some bells and whistles similar to org-mode, like C-c C-l for inserting links etc.

I seldom export my notes for external usage, but if it is the case, I use lowdown (https://kristaps.bsd.lv/lowdown/) which also comes with some nice output targets (among the more unusual are Groff and Terminal). Of cource pandoc (https://pandoc.org/) does a very good job here, too.

This is one of those things that the ever-amazing pandoc (https://pandoc.org/) does very well, on top of supporting virtually every other document format.

Folks feel the same way about Markdown versus LaTeX: why use something significantly more complicated where a looser, human-readable grammar works better?

For any other situations, I use https://pandoc.org/, or, generate a Word doc scriptomatically.

pandoc toolchain pour builder une version confortable/imprimable en phase de travail (ePub, pdf, docx, html)

Congrats on the launch, I guess, but there are so many free options that I can't think of a situation where paying $0.25 per document would be justified...? Just to name a few:

Back in the days, I used to use XSL-FO [0] and it was okay. It was not very precise but it rarely if ever broke, and was perfectly integrated with an XML/XSLT solution. Yeah, this was a long time ago.

Last month I used html-to-pdfmake [1] and it's also not very precise and more fragile, but very efficient and fast.

Yet another approach would be to pro grammatically generate .rtf files (for example) and use Pandoc [2] to produce PDFs (I have not tried this in production but don't see why it wouldn't work).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSL_Formatting_Objects

[1] https://www.npmjs.com/package/html-to-pdfmake

[2] https://pandoc.org/

Others have mentioned static site generators. I like Hakyll [1] because it can tightly integrate with Pandoc [2] and allows you to develop custom solutions if your needs ever grow.

[1]: https://jaspervdj.be/hakyll/

[2]: https://pandoc.org/

Have you compared it with a conversion by pandoc (https://pandoc.org/)?

I have used it to kickstart a blogging project that I wish to come back to soon. The Lua inter-op for custom readers, writers and filters is great but I wish there was more editor integration and even perhaps an official IDE/editor with built-in debugging features (probably something already do-able with Emacs but I haven't checked). The only blocker for my project is no support for "ChunkedDoc" for Lua filters [1] which forces me to write more code and a complicated Makefile.

[1]: https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/9061