Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole

[Scott Randby]

On 07/01/2016 03:09 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > From: Scott Randby <address@hidden>
> > Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:38:23 -0400
> >
> > > This discussion will be much more useful if people would not take it
> > > as an attack on Org.  In particular, the criticism is not about Org
> > > from POV of the end user, it's about its design principles.  IOW, the
> > > real subject of this discussion is how should we design large Emacs
> > > packages, and Org is just being used as an example, to have some
> > > context and some concrete instances of the abstract ideas.  See the
> > > beginning of the discussion.
> >
> > I have been following the entire discussion closely. It contains a
> > direct attack on Org by someone who clearly doesn't even know the basics
> > of Org. No other examples were given, and none other than Org have been
> > given so far by anyone else. If Org is being used as just one example,
> > please give other examples of Emacs packages that don't live up to the
> > vague "design standards" that are desired, and explain why these
> > packages violate those standards so that we can understand exactly what
> > the problem is.
>
> Having just one example in a discussion doesn't constitute an attack
> on that single example.

Again, what are other examples? If Org is the only example, then what 
makes it different from all the other Emacs packages? If there are more 
examples, then what is it they have in common so that a design 
philosophy can be developed that is universally useful?

I could spend all day being critical of Gnus, but I've never been able 
to figure out how to use it so I don't have any legitimate reason to 
present my uninformed opinion about it. Nobody cares about my opinion 
anyway since I have no standing in the Emacs community. Richard or 
others with influence can make a vague statement that something is wrong 
with Org and the community will think that the opinion has merit when in 
fact it doesn't.

> Besides, I think the fact that Richard was turned off by Org so early
> in his attempts to learn it should tell us something important.
> Richard cannot be accused of being an Emacs outsider, or of not being
> capable of learning complex Emacs stuff.

Yes, it says that Richard doesn't know how to use Org. I never accused 
Richard of being an Emacs outsider. Such an accusation would be 
completely false and mean. I wouldn't dare question Richard's ability to 
learn Org either. What I don't see in his statements about Org are 
concrete facts and suggestions except for the fact that much of Org 
doesn't work outside of Org and that this is bad for some unstated 
reason backed up by no evidence.

> > > If people could stop being defensive about Org, and instead think more
> > > broadly, and perhaps bring some other examples into this discussion,
> > > we might actually reach some useful conclusions that could help us in
> > > the future.
> >
> > Yes, what are those other examples. Please be specific. The statement
> > that advocates of Org aren't thinking broadly is false, and it isn't the
> > job of Org users to bring other examples into the discussion.
>
> AFAIU, this discussion was meant for Emacs developers, not for Org
> users/advocates.  The suggestion to think broadly was aimed at all of
> us, not just for those who think Org was designed in the best way
> possible.  Think broadly in this context means think about more than
> just Org.

I'm sorry I said anything since I'm not an Emacs developer. But I never 
claimed that Org was designed in the best way possible. Yes, I care more 
about Org than other packages because I use Org for almost all of my 
work, it is a fantastic tool. I'm just tired of these digs at Org from 
people who don't use it.

> > Telling us the design is flawed without suggesting how it can be
> > fixed is saying nothing useful.
>
> AFAIU, Richard's comment was that the design principles were wrong,
> not that the design itself was flawed.  The main design principle in
> question is that of tight integration between unrelated parts of a
> large package.

Though I'm not an Emacs or an Org developer, I have to disagree 
slightly. The tight integration between pieces of Org is one of the 
features that makes it so useful. I don't see how modularization of Org 
is going to be easy or even desirable.

> > Of course we can learn from the design of Org, but saying that doesn't
> > contribute anything to the so-called discussion of design principles. I
> > haven't been defensive. Instead, I would like to see specifics. Without
> > specifics, then a small number of the comments about Org that have been
> > made in this thread are simply uninformed attacks and are therefore
> > useless.
>
> I tried to give a few specific examples up-thread.

I will read those carefully.

> > > > it appears to me that perhaps incorporating Org into official Emacs
> > > > was the failure
> > >
> > > Now, this is uncalled-for, and factually incorrect.
> >
> > I did not mean that Org was unsuccessfully incorporated into Emacs. Such
> > a claim would be false. What I meant was that the repeated attacks on
> > Org (on this thread and others) from a tiny segment of the Emacs
> > community have made some Org users (such as myself and a few of my
> > friends) regret the merging of Org into Emacs.
>
> AFAIR, Org became part of Emacs in 2005, merely 2 years since its
> inception.  I was there when it happened.  To me, this means Org has
> been part of Emacs almost from its very beginning.

I didn't think that Org had been part of Emacs for that long since I 
didn't research the matter. But I started using Org before it was part 
of Emacs, so I too was there when it happened and it didn't happen until 
after Org was fully functional. I supported the move at that time even 
though I never use the version of Org included in Emacs.

>