Actually I think you’re missing the point. “Parsing” is not something that computers alone do; humans do it. You see text and understand it to be text, you see <img> and understand it to be an HTML tag (and hopefully know whether your engine will pass it through, or leave it as text, or strip it), you see **double asterisks** and understand it to be bold or strong emphasis.

If you only care about reading it raw, you don’t bother with Markdown. Some of what you write will be the same as Markdown, but not all—for example, no one would use its ridiculous link or image syntax.

The reason you write with Markdown syntax is because you want to be able to format it (even if you will normally consume it in plain text yourself). And once you’re using Markdown syntax, you need to know the rules, to a greater or lesser extent. You must be able to parse Markdown syntax mentally. If you don’t know the rules well enough, your mental parse will be incorrect, and you’ll produce errors. Errors that won’t be detected by your computer. That’s the hazard with Markdown compared to C++: your mental parser is buggy and incomplete, but with C++ the computer will generally catch your errors while with Markdown it will never catch your errors.

▲

SiempreViernes 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Read their parsing statement in context:

> Markdown is that it's easy to read, and its second-biggest advantage is that it's easy to write. How easy it is to parse doesn't matter

After saying MD is "easy to read" the meaning of "parsing" is clearly limited to automated parsing by non-humans, and the only reasonable reading is "provided the markup is easy to read for humans, the difficulty in constructing an automated parser is irrelevant".

	▲	chrismorgan 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Reading is not sufficient. If you want it to produce the appropriate HTML, you must parse too. When you write a file name a_b_c in one place, and a mathematical expression abc in another place, and you don’t want to use `code formatting`, you need to know Markdown’s rules. Because otherwise, you’ll write abc and get abc, instead of writing a\b\c to get abc. (And those are only the exact rules if you’re using CommonMark. On another engine, it might behave differently.) If you only want to read, don’t use Markdown. But if you want to process as well, you need to know the processing.

▲

indymike 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> C++ the computer will generally catch your errors while with Markdown it will never catch your errors.

Conveying meaning at the bitwise operator level is a different thing than applying emphasis to a few words in a sentence with bolding or embedding a hyperlink in a document.

	▲	chrismorgan 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I’ve frequently seen mistakes in Markdown syntax that lead to content that has at best partially-broken formatting, at worst losing some of the content, sometimes even in ways that aren’t obvious. Markup versus computer code is of course not exactly the same, but the nature of the mistakes—tokens in places they’re not supposed to be, and such—would generally lead to a syntax error in C++.

▲

yawaramin 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No, I am positive you are missing the point.

> no one would use its ridiculous link or image syntax.

And many don't, which is fine! But some do, if they remember the syntax. Markdown is tolerant of that, and ultimately if the file is rendered to HTML Markdown engines know to just turn raw URLs into hyperlinks.

> The reason you write with Markdown syntax is because you want to be able to format it

Maybe sometimes. Not always. That's the point. A lot of the time it's nice that most technical people who write docs in text files all agree on what headings, lists, emphasis etc. should look like in plain text so we don't have to constantly do a dance of negotiating what the markup is. And the bonus on top of that is we can also get a reasonable HTML page out of it.

> If you don’t know the rules well enough, your mental parse will be incorrect, and you’ll produce errors. Errors that won’t be detected by your computer. That’s the hazard with Markdown

I mean, 'hazard'. Kind of an over-the-top way to put it. It's a text file for documentation purposes, not a production system handling money or something. Nobody cares if the Markdown has a few syntactic errors. The point is to convey information to other humans in a reasonably efficient way.