|Subject:||Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole|
|Date:||Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:54:51 -0400|
Robert Weiner <rsw <at> gnu.org> writes:
> Or produce a coherent set of requirements and have an Emacs-familiar architect
> and programmer (or team) work to produce new implementations with clean
> data abstractions,
In the real word these abstractions always lag behind practical
development like adding new features, because development constantly
moves forward amd while you come up with an abstraction, the new
developments may already have surpassed that.
In addition, emacs doesn't have a surplus of developers who have
the ability and time to rewrite a huge piece of existing code, so
striving for clean implementation rewrites is not really practical
with the current developer base. There's lot of work to do already
without rewrites too.
> Emacs should have excellent tools in these
> areas. Has anyone examined the org-mode code to see whether it is well
> written or not?
Org is an excellent, practical tool. That's why people use it.
It may have room for improvement in its internals, but it can be
said about other parts of emacs also. In software development there
is rarely time to rewrite a big piece of existing code and it's
especially true for volunteer projects with constrained resources.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|