Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole

[John Mastro <john.b.mastro@gmail.com>]

Hi Scott,

Scott Randby <srandby@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

In Richard's first email in this thread, he said:

> Org mode is an example of how Emacs development went astray.
>
> Emacs has many different modes and features.  Users should be able to
> use them all either separately or (when meaningful) in combination.
> The problem with Org mode is that many separate features have been
> tied together inside it.  You can't use them separately.
>
> The right way to integrate Org mode into Emacs would be to pry out
> each of those subfeatures and integrate it individually -- so that a
> user could use each of them either with or without Org mode.  It is
> not too late for people to do this sort of thing, but it should have
> been done before.

I hope coming back to this helps make the context more clear. He is
criticizing how Org was integrated into Emacs, not Org itself.

Beyond that, I hope that we can all dial back the negative emotions in
this conversation. Org is an important, well-loved Emacs package. At the
same time, some people don't like it, or don't like particular aspects
of its implementation. Nothing is equally liked by everyone, and that's
okay, even if you're pretty sure those people are mistaken!

        John