On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> wrote:

> Even Carsten will admit
> he's not a software architect by trade; he did what he did based on what he
> wanted to achieve with Org-mode, and not based on engineering decisions.
>

Well that explains a lot to those of us unfamiliar with the history.  Maybe
the
popularity is based on two things: 1. they provided a welcoming community
that allowed for many people to contribute; 2. they provided the only
significant
solution in these areas to people who wanted to do them within Emacs.


> Now that all the useful work has been done, and experiences gained, it
> could
> be a good time to sift out some of the best of its functionality into
> separate
> modules.


Or produce a coherent set of requirements and have an Emacs-familiar
architect
and programmer (or team) work to produce new implementations with clean
data abstractions, improved visual formats and even higher usability.  Task
tracking, agendas, outlining and literate programming are important daily
work
areas for  many technical people, so Emacs should have excellent tools in
these
areas.  Has anyone examined the org-mode code to see whether it is well
written or not?

Bob