Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Scott Randby <srandby@gmail.com>
> 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.