If you can’t take the time to write an actual introduction for your library and instead delegate it to AI, why would anyone take the time to try your library out and see if it’s useful? I understand using AI to document but for the front page of your programming project it should be hand written. Maybe with some AI assistance for grammar.

I'm all in favour of Markdown with more capabilities, but this isn't a useful project.

Generated docs like this are worse than gibberish--they take far longer to parse, and there's no way of knowing if any one sentence is actually meaningful or correct. There are definitely some places where the docs aren't coherent, but those are (ironically) the best bits: you can verify quality immediately.

With meaningful documentation, I could be tempted to use this. As it is, this reads worse than a Markov chain (which is at least obviously nonsense) and makes me extremely skeptical of the project's quality or use.

Hyper-Markdown (`.hmd`) is ordinary Markdown plus rich visuals plus wiki links into a knowledge graph. Every `.md` file is already valid `.hmd`.

* Early language specification draft, still very open to change * Looking for contributors and feedback — both are welcome! * There is already a lightweight proposal process for discussing changes * Docs, specification and implementation are available at https://hyper-markdown.org/

If this direction sounds useful, I'd love people to try it, challenge the design, or get involved.

I was hoping for hypertext inspired markdown, instead it's a regular one with hyperinflated promises

This just looks like obsidian's markdown flavour.

I see python and typescript(not published yet), are there any plans for other implementations ?

Thanks Claude for writing that