[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole

From: Scott Randby
Subject: Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 17:34:44 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0

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

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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]