Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole

[Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>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.
>
>It may be that this issue applies to Hyperbole too.  If so, I hope
>that we will handle Hyperbole better than we handled Org mode.
>
>For instance, Emacs should have a calendar which does not depend on
>Hyperbole or BBDB or Org mode (but can work well with any of them).

I think (probably agreeing with John W) that this is oversimplifying.

Org Mode, like Emacs, requires a fair amount of investment on the part of the user before the rewards arrive.  Once the rewards finally start arriving, the investment becomes worth it -- but until until then, one makes the effort on faith.  Unfortunately, the investment of effort required for Org Mode is not the _same_ effort as for Emacs.  First one makes the Emacs investment, and then later one makes the Org Mode investment on top of that.  Both will pay off, if the investment is done right.

But if one hasn't made that investment for Org Mode, then it is easy to view Org Mode as having gone astray.