Re: Convert some files from outline-mode to org-mode

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Stefan.

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 17:43:55 +0200, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> In Bug#40813, I suggest the following:

>     * CONTRIBUTE:
>     * etc/CALC-NEWS:
>     * etc/DEBUG:
>     * etc/MACHINES:
>     * etc/PROBLEMS:
>     * etc/TODO: Use org-mode instead of outline-mode.

> The reason is that I believe our users are more familiar with org-mode
> than outline-mode, and that I simply think the interface is better.
> It's the forward-looking, "modern" choice, if you like.

> This was not met with undivided enthusiasm, and the suggestion was to
> bring the discussion here.

> Here's my attempt to summarize the counter-arguments:

> (1) Outline-mode is in fact more well-known than org-mode.
> (2) Org-mode increases memory consumption (by 1-3 MB).
> (3) We could improve outline-mode by adding something like org-cycle (TAB).
> (4) There's a slight delay when opening an org file for the first time
> in a session.

You fail to represent my objection, here.  Let me restate it.

org-mode is a sledgehammer and the six outline-mode files are mere nuts.
The org-mode source files are 100 times as big as outline.el.

You do not have to "know" outline-mode to use it.  I certainly don't.
It is merely text-mode adorned with a few non-essential commands for
navigating via the outlines.  Anybody who can use Emacs at all can use
outline-mode.

By contrast, org-mode is a monster.  The learning time for org-mode must
be non-trivial.  If we switch these files to org-mode, org mode gurus
will fill them up with obscure org-mode constructs leaving everybody
else unable to work on these files without leaning org-mode.  In my case
I will have to relearn it each time I use it (since I will not be using
it enough to remember it).

I would emphasise here that I don't know org-mode at all.  I would
strongly object to being forced to learn it, merely to continue actively
contributing to Emacs.

> I would say that (1) is hard to prove or disprove, and I have only
> anecdotal evidence here.  Regarding (2), this is true but I disagree
> that it's significant enough to worry about in this day and age.  It's
> hard to argue against (3) but it needs an interested party to do it.
> Finally, I don't know if anything can be done about (4).

> So please make it known how you feel about this proposal.

> Best regards,
> Stefan Kangas

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).