From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 22:09:16 +0300 Message-ID: <83k2h5tbtv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h9cdmj6t.fsf@delle7240.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> <5775A512.4020803@gmail.com> <8337ntvm2d.fsf@gnu.org> <5776B89F.60704@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467400197 11667 80.91.229.3 (1 Jul 2016 19:09:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:09:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Scott Randby Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 01 21:09:52 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bJ3oz-0006Sy-Rw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 21:09:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35281 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJ3oz-0000lI-0q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 15:09:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57393) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJ3oq-0000jQ-1X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 15:09:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJ3oj-0004DE-TF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 15:09:38 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34885) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJ3oj-0004DA-Pk; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 15:09:33 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1754 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bJ3oh-00050y-Vo; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 15:09:32 -0400 In-reply-to: <5776B89F.60704@gmail.com> (message from Scott Randby on Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:38:23 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205052 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Scott Randby > 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. 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. > > 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. > 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. > 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. > >> 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.