From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marcin Borkowski Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 19:51:29 +0200 Message-ID: <87lh1gas7y.fsf@mbork.pl> References: <87h9cdmj6t.fsf@delle7240.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> <5775A512.4020803@gmail.com> <8337ntvm2d.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467746140 19677 80.91.229.3 (5 Jul 2016 19:15:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Scott Randby , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 05 21:15:26 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 1bKVob-0005BA-36 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 21:15:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57534 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKVoa-0005cm-2F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 15:15:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56694) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKUVX-0004Gu-Bi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:51:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKUVW-0002vP-3e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:51:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([2a01:5e00:2:52::8]:56759) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKUVQ-0002tC-3Y; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:51:32 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0741A14FA7; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:51:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.mojserwer.eu Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mojserwer.eu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQHQf4ivqPa1; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:51:28 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (98-171.echostar.pl [213.156.98.171]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 034ED14FA5; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:51:27 +0200 (CEST) User-agent: mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 25.1.50.3 In-reply-to: <8337ntvm2d.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2a01:5e00:2:52::8 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:205200 Archived-At: On 2016-07-01, at 09:45, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Scott Randby >> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:02:42 -0400 >> >> On 06/30/2016 01:58 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >> > > This seems to be a major part of your issue with Org mode. Could you >> > > explain in some detail what you mean specifically by having to learn >> > > basic Org mode before seeing what its features are? >> > >> > I don't remember -- it was years ago that I took a look at it >> > and gave up. I don't have time to revisit it now. >> >> It is hard to take this criticism of Org seriously > > 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. Well said. I agree that Org could be designed much better internally. OTOH, I feel that the criticism might have been taken better if it had been founded in at least rudimentary knowledge of Org. > 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. > > Please note that I am an Org user myself, albeit not a heavy user. > When I need to make sense out of many tasks and manage them in a > GTD-like manner, I use Org. Some of the more serious tasks of my work > on Emacs, such as the bidirectional display, were managed via Org. > > But using Org and being fond of it doesn't mean we cannot learn from > its design for the future, and it doesn't mean we cannot decide that > an alternative design could yield a more useful set of feature that > would be easier to learn than what we have now. It's a legitimate > conclusion, and it doesn't in any way denigrate Org, because a package > design isn't determined solely by its designers, it is determined by > many other factors, like the available time and resources, on which no > one has full control. Therefore, saying that an alternative design > could yield better results doesn't put any blame on those who worked > on the package, and shouldn't put those people on the defensive. > >> The Org community is very open to suggestions for improvement. If anyone >> has specific suggestions for improvements to Org, instead of vague >> pronouncements about alleged failures, then please send them to the Org >> mailing list. +1. > This is exactly what this discussion is NOT about. Org's design is a > fait accompli, and no one in their right mind will come up with > suggestions to redesign it. Once again, this is not about some flaw > in Org, it's about design principles of large Emacs packages. > >> it appears to me that perhaps incorporating Org into official Emacs >> was the failure > > Now, this is uncalled-for, and factually incorrect. Actually, I'd agree with that: Emacs release cycle is much longer than Org's, and quite a few problems on Org's ML are results of mixing included and installed versions of Org. Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University