Pros of Python-Markdown

• Lightweight and focused specifically on Markdown processing
• Easy to integrate into Python projects
• Extensible through custom extensions

Cons of Python-Markdown

• Limited to Markdown input and HTML output
• Fewer supported input/output formats compared to Pandoc
• Less comprehensive documentation and community support

Code Comparison

Python-Markdown:

import markdown

html = markdown.markdown(text)

Pandoc:

import Text.Pandoc

result <- runIO $ readMarkdown def text >>= writeHTML5 def

Python-Markdown focuses on simplicity and ease of use within Python ecosystems, while Pandoc offers a more comprehensive document conversion solution with support for numerous formats. Python-Markdown is ideal for projects requiring straightforward Markdown-to-HTML conversion, whereas Pandoc excels in complex document transformations across various formats.

Python-Markdown's lightweight nature makes it quicker to set up and use in Python projects, but it lacks the versatility of Pandoc's extensive format support. Pandoc's broader feature set comes with a steeper learning curve and potentially more complex integration, especially in Python-centric environments.

Pros of CommonMark

• Focused specifically on standardizing Markdown syntax
• Provides a clear, unambiguous specification for Markdown
• Offers a test suite for implementers to ensure compliance

Cons of CommonMark

• Limited in scope compared to Pandoc's broader document conversion capabilities
• Less flexible for handling various input and output formats
• Lacks advanced features like citation support and custom extensions

Code Comparison

CommonMark (JavaScript implementation):

var reader = new commonmark.Parser();
var writer = new commonmark.HtmlRenderer();
var parsed = reader.parse("Hello *world*");
var result = writer.render(parsed);

Pandoc (Haskell):

import Text.Pandoc
import Text.Pandoc.PDF

main :: IO ()
main = runIOorExplode $ do
  doc <- readMarkdown def "Hello *world*"
  writeHtml5String def doc

Summary

CommonMark focuses on standardizing Markdown syntax, providing a clear specification and test suite. Pandoc, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive document conversion tool with support for multiple formats and advanced features. CommonMark is ideal for those seeking a consistent Markdown implementation, while Pandoc is better suited for complex document processing tasks across various formats.

Pros of Blackfriday

• Written in Go, offering better performance for Go-based applications
• Lightweight and focused specifically on Markdown parsing
• Easier to integrate into Go projects with minimal dependencies

Cons of Blackfriday

• Limited to Markdown input and HTML output
• Fewer features and customization options compared to Pandoc
• Less active development and community support

Code Comparison

Blackfriday (Go):

import "github.com/russross/blackfriday/v2"

markdown := []byte("# Hello, Markdown!")
html := blackfriday.Run(markdown)

Pandoc (Haskell):

import Text.Pandoc

main :: IO ()
main = do
  let markdown = "# Hello, Markdown!"
  result <- runIO $ readMarkdown def markdown >>= writeHtml5String def
  putStrLn $ either show id result

Summary

Blackfriday is a lightweight, Go-specific Markdown parser that excels in performance and ease of integration for Go projects. However, it lacks the extensive features and format support of Pandoc. Pandoc, written in Haskell, offers a more comprehensive document conversion toolset with support for numerous input and output formats, making it more versatile but potentially more complex to use and integrate, especially in non-Haskell environments.

Pros of Markup

• Lightweight and focused specifically on rendering various markup formats for GitHub
• Easier integration with GitHub-specific features and workflows
• Supports a wider range of markup languages out-of-the-box (e.g., .textile, .rdoc, .org)

Cons of Markup

• Limited functionality compared to Pandoc's extensive conversion capabilities
• Less flexible for non-GitHub use cases or complex document transformations
• Smaller community and fewer extensions/plugins available

Code Comparison

Markup (Ruby):

def render(content)
  GitHub::Markup.render(file, content)
end

Pandoc (Haskell):

convertMarkdown :: String -> IO String
convertMarkdown input = runIOorExplode $ readMarkdown def input >>= writeHtml5String def

Summary

Markup is a specialized tool for GitHub-centric markup rendering, while Pandoc offers a more comprehensive document conversion solution. Markup excels in its simplicity and GitHub integration, whereas Pandoc provides greater flexibility and power for complex document transformations across various formats. The choice between the two depends on the specific use case and required features.

Pros of Showdown

• Lightweight and focused on Markdown to HTML conversion
• Easy to integrate into JavaScript projects, especially for browser-based applications
• Simpler to use for basic Markdown tasks

Cons of Showdown

• Limited input/output format support compared to Pandoc's extensive capabilities
• Less powerful for complex document conversions or academic writing needs
• Smaller community and fewer extensions/plugins available

Code Comparison

Showdown (JavaScript):

var converter = new showdown.Converter();
var html = converter.makeHtml('# Hello, Markdown!');

Pandoc (Command-line):

pandoc input.md -o output.html

Key Differences

• Pandoc is a comprehensive document conversion tool supporting numerous formats, while Showdown focuses on Markdown to HTML conversion.
• Showdown is JavaScript-based and easily integrates into web applications, whereas Pandoc is a standalone command-line tool written in Haskell.
• Pandoc offers more advanced features like citations, metadata handling, and custom templates, making it suitable for academic and complex document processing.
• Showdown is more appropriate for simpler Markdown tasks in web environments, while Pandoc excels in versatility and power for various document conversion needs.

Pros of Asciidoctor

• Native Ruby implementation, making it faster and more efficient for Ruby-based projects
• More extensive syntax and formatting options for technical documentation
• Better support for generating complex, multi-format output (HTML, PDF, EPUB)

Cons of Asciidoctor

• Limited support for input formats compared to Pandoc
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex syntax
• Less flexibility in converting between various document formats

Code Comparison

Asciidoctor (Ruby):

require 'asciidoctor'

Asciidoctor.convert_file 'document.adoc', to_file: 'output.html', safe: :safe

Pandoc (Haskell):

import Text.Pandoc

main :: IO ()
main = runIOorExplode $ readMarkdown def "input.md" >>= writeHtml5 def

Both Asciidoctor and Pandoc are powerful document conversion tools, but they cater to different needs. Asciidoctor excels in creating technical documentation with its rich syntax and multi-format output capabilities, making it ideal for Ruby-based projects. Pandoc, on the other hand, offers unparalleled flexibility in converting between various document formats and supports a wider range of input formats. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the ecosystem you're working in.