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: Sat, 02 Jul 2016 13:36:29 +0300 Message-ID: <83wpl4s4wi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h9cdmj6t.fsf@delle7240.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> <5775A512.4020803@gmail.com> <8337ntvm2d.fsf@gnu.org> <5776B89F.60704@gmail.com> <83k2h5tbtv.fsf@gnu.org> <5776E1F4.3020709@gmail.com> <83eg7ctt90.fsf@gnu.org> <87poqwpfld.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <83y45ks69l.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467455852 21990 80.91.229.3 (2 Jul 2016 10:37:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 10:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stromeko@nexgo.de Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 02 12:37:27 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 1bJIIg-0001ac-4y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 12:37:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37862 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJIIf-0000zZ-Hu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 06:37:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38869) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJII4-0000vL-Ix for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 06:36:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJII0-00060c-BZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 06:36:47 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49972) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJII0-00060X-8D; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 06:36:44 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2784 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bJIHz-0006fM-Ao; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 06:36:43 -0400 In-reply-to: <83y45ks69l.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 13:07:02 +0300) 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:205085 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2016 13:07:02 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > From: Achim Gratz > > Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2016 11:13:50 +0200 > > > Sure, we can come up with use cases where it makes sense to use these > > > features together in the same file, but I think use cases where they > > > are unrelated are much more abundant. > > > > Cases of using a computer that do not involve the Emacs are also > > abundant, I hope you agree that this as not an argument against Emacs. > > You are missing the point. The point is how much of the basic > functionality one needs to master before they can use a single feature > of a large package. If the answer for your Emacs analogy is "too > much", then it _is_ indeed an argument "against Emacs". Btw, while there might be a sufficient justification for having a high entry bar into Emacs, having yet another high bar _inside_ Emacs for using one of its features is an additional annoyance, and so not a good thing.