pandoc VS vimwiki

Pandoc Documentation - Universal

I think TFA is unfair wrt pandoc's dependencies. I'm not sure if the listed "ecosystem" is what you need to build pandoc from source, or just the result of shitty packaging of pandoc from the OS package maintainers.

For the record, the .deb download from [1] gives you a 146MB statically linked pandoc executable that depends only on libc6 (>= 2.13), libgmp10, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4).

[1] https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/releases

Another option is Quarto [1]. It's basically a friendly wrapper around Pandoc [2], letting you write in Markdown (+ lots of Quarto-specific extensions) and render to LaTeX, Typst, multi-page HTML, EPUB, docx, and more.

[1] https://quarto.org/

[2] https://pandoc.org/

The resulting Markdown is passed to pandoc to convert it to HTML

To be fair, one there's a good one there's much less incentive to write something new. In this case the good converter is Pandoc: https://pandoc.org/

There are a handful of excellent command-line tools, and Pandoc comes to mind. It is not just a one-trick pony, too. With Pandoc you can convert between many different formats.

I’ll be using the Template Toolkit to build the site, with a sprinkling of Bootstrap to make it look half-decent. Because there is a lot of Markdown-to-HTML conversion, I’ll use my Template::Provider::Pandoc module which uses Pandoc to convert templates into different formats.

So happy that it continues to grow in popularity. Draw is probably their best tool in the suite. Also related, people might be interested in using Xournal (https://xournalpp.github.io/) for PDF manipulations and pandoc (https://pandoc.org/) for general document conversion.

The other ones most people point to are https://pandoc.org and https://shellcheck.net

I use vimwiki[1] just for this "diary" functionality, with different days in different files. Can browse the directory in netrw to find a day's notes, and I have scripts that let me archive old stuff. I tend to put an "x" in front of completed lines (and move uncompleted lines forward to new days) so it is easy to detect and archive unactionable or "completed" files.

[1]: https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki

My comparison is always with good ol' Vim Wiki[1], which still works great with NeoVim. I'd add that to the list for comparison too.

1. https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki

No, Neorg does not use the same markup as Org-mode. They use their own specification that is specifically designed to be different from Org-mode spec.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nvim-neorg/norg-specs/main...

Furthermore, each item you have listed as a benefit to Org-mode is in fact capable of being done in Markdown via plugins for neovim, and probably other markdown editors, like Loqseq, Roamresearch, or Obisidian, much in the same way you speak of plugins that interface with .org docs.

https://github.com/wthollingsworth/pomodoro.nvim

https://github.com/Myzel394/easytables.nvim

https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki

So, my suggestion is that before dismissing a comment regarding a plugin that is unfamiliar to you, is to read its spec, and then try to understand why people would be perhaps dismissive of that tool, especially when it chooses to conflict with existing, more popular choices.

you might want to look at how vimwiki does markdown tables https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki

I've been thinking of setting up a note taking enviroment in neovim. I've been searching around, and plugins as vimwiki, and nabla.nvim are great choices for me. I'm using Notion right now because of the great commands that brings that make the note taking pretty enjoyable. But the dividers, or putting background to text are features that I don't wanna lose, if possible.

I wrote a manuscript in vim a couple Novembers ago, for NaNoWrimo. I used a couple plugins, primarily Goyo [1] to add some margins, but otherwise, yeah, plain vim.

I don't think it was really any more productive than my current workflow in Obsidian. Vim keybindings are more useful for editing than for writing (and for editing code in particular, where the changes you're making are much more structured). Also, while the extra features afforded by Obsidian don't really make a difference during the writing process, I find they're really useful for outlines and other preliminary work, which is something of a point against a vim-only workflow unless you want to use vimwiki [2] or something.

Granted, Obsidian is still a markdown-based tool, so there's still some level of minimalism going on there, but by that point we're really discussing markup vs word processors, which is its own conversation—and to my mind, a much more important one. I much prefer working in markup than in a rich text editor, because plain text is easy to edit and process through the terminal, and because it lets me separate style choices from content.

I find that the markdown live preview that editors like Obsidian and Typora provide (and which vim doesn't) is a really nice compromise between a slick composing experience and the technical affordances of markup. Between that and Obsidian's hypertext features, I think I'll stick with Obsidian for the foreseeable future.

[1]: https://github.com/junegunn/goyo.vim

[2]: https://vimwiki.github.io/

I use vimwiki.

Hey folks, I have been using Neovim for the past 2 years, don't have any complaints, however, I really want to give Emacs an honest try but not really sure where to start. I want to do basic text editing, programming and something similar to vimwiki (https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki)

How about learning vim and using vimwiki ?