The fate of ob-asymptote.el

The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Jarmo Hurri]

Greetings.

Summary: I vote, very late, for the inclusion of ob-asymptote.el into
Org. In my opinion, Asymptote is far too valuable a tool to be excluded
by default.

Long version:

Either me or my system have been sleeping for quite a while, because
just today I woke up to the fact that ob-asymptote.el has been moved out
of Org and into org-contrib. According to org-contrib, this means that

Files in this repository receive little if no maintainance and there is
no guarantee that they are compatible with the Org stable version.

Not only is this a poor situation for me personally, but I also think it
is a bad decision for Org. I have been using the combination of Org and
Asymptote for all my work stuff for a long time now. The combo is simply
_superior_. I do not need to talk about Org, and will focus on Asymptote
only.

Asymptote is a _brilliant__ tool for drawing all sorts of (scientific)
diagrams, be those 2D or 3D (click on menu on left to view different
galleries):

https://asymptote.sourceforge.io/gallery/

Asymptote has been a stable programming language for quite a while:

https://asymptote.sourceforge.io/

It is being actively maintained and upgraded.

If ob-asymptote.el is kept external to Org, future users will have a
much higher threshold to use this combination.

I would like ob-asymptote.el to be brought back. If there is something I
can do to help, I will be glad to do so.

All the best,

Jarmo

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Tory S. Anderson]

Not a major contributor to Org yet, but I have been using it faithfully for a decade. Asymptote looks to be incredibly useful in my research! Thanks for making me aware of it! https://asymptote.sourceforge.io/index.html

- Tory

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Nick Dokos]

Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hurri@iki.fi> writes:

> ...
>
> I would like ob-asymptote.el to be brought back. If there is something I
> can do to help, I will be glad to do so.
>
All you have to do is volunteer to maintain it. Let Bastien know: he will
assign you the maintenance of the file and all the asymptote users will owe
you a debt of gratitude.

See https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html, the bullet with the title
"Maintain an Org file".

-- 
Nick

"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache
invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors." -Martin Fowler

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Jarmo Hurri]

Hello Nick!

Nick Dokos <ndokos@gmail.com> writes:

> Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hurri@iki.fi> writes:
>
>> ...
>>
>> I would like ob-asymptote.el to be brought back. If there is something I
>> can do to help, I will be glad to do so.
>>
> All you have to do is volunteer to maintain it. Let Bastien know: he
> will assign you the maintenance of the file and all the asymptote
> users will owe you a debt of gratitude.

Thanks!

I have just posted another message into this group for this purpose.

All the best,

Jarmo

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hurri@iki.fi> writes:

> If ob-asymptote.el is kept external to Org, future users will have a
> much higher threshold to use this combination.

Is major-mode for editing asymptote code available easily?
I was unable to find anything relevant in ELPA and non-GNU ELPA.

Best,
Ihor

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Max Nikulin]

On 21/07/2022 18:54, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> Jarmo Hurri writes:
> 
>> If ob-asymptote.el is kept external to Org, future users will have a
>> much higher threshold to use this combination.
> 
> Is major-mode for editing asymptote code available easily?
> I was unable to find anything relevant in ELPA and non-GNU ELPA.

I am not an asymptote user, but the following suggests that it may be 
installed with asymptote package

https://packages.debian.org/file:asy-mode.el

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Ihor Radchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 508 bytes --]

Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes:

>> Is major-mode for editing asymptote code available easily?
>> I was unable to find anything relevant in ELPA and non-GNU ELPA.
>
> I am not an asymptote user, but the following suggests that it may be
> installed with asymptote package
>
> https://packages.debian.org/file:asy-mode.el

Confirm. I also do see an "emacs" use-flag in asymptote Gentoo package.

Then, would it make more sense to include ob-asymptote.el into the
asymptote distribution?

Best,
Ihor

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 726 bytes --]

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Jarmo Hurri]

Hello Ihor.

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Is major-mode for editing asymptote code available easily?
>>> I was unable to find anything relevant in ELPA and non-GNU ELPA.
>>
>> I am not an asymptote user, but the following suggests that it may be
>> installed with asymptote package
>>
>> https://packages.debian.org/file:asy-mode.el
>
> Confirm. I also do see an "emacs" use-flag in asymptote Gentoo package.

That seems to also be the case for Fedora:

sh-5.1$ dnf provides "*site-lisp/asymptote/asy-mode.el"
symptote-2.81-1.fc36.x86_64 : Descriptive vector graphics language
Repo        : @System
Matched from:
Other       : *site-lisp/asymptote/asy-mode.el

> Then, would it make more sense to include ob-asymptote.el into the
> asymptote distribution?

I do not think this is a good idea:

- I am not involved in the development of asymptote, so this solution
  would put maintenance of ob-asymptote.el beyond my reach.

- I have no idea whether developers of Asymptote have any interest in
  Org.

- Comparing to another language: what is the situation e.g. with
  Haskell? We have ob-haskell.el (thanks to Lawrence Bottorff). In my
  distro at least, I have Haskell mode installed separately. Should we
  then move ob-haskell.el into the package supplying Haskell mode?

- Somehow I also think that the proposed solution would be close to the
  idea of including ob-C.el into a C compiler distribution.

All the best,

Jarmo

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hurri@iki.fi> writes:

>> Then, would it make more sense to include ob-asymptote.el into the
>> asymptote distribution?
>
> I do not think this is a good idea:
>
> - I am not involved in the development of asymptote, so this solution
>   would put maintenance of ob-asymptote.el beyond my reach.

AFAIK, it is developed publicly. Anyone can open a pull request or post
on their forum.

> - I have no idea whether developers of Asymptote have any interest in
>   Org.

They are at least interested in Emacs. So, they might as well be
interested in Org (which is a part of Emacs). Can ask.

The advantage of maintaining ob-asymptote.el in the main asymptote repo
is that people who are intimately familiar with the asymptote features
can directly contribute and enhance the Org integration. Moreover,
distributing together with the asymptote means no headache with
back-compatibility issues.

Maintaining on Org side will have an advantage of using the latest
additions to Org babel features.

I feel like it is more important to make use of the asymptote features
if its devs are going to be interested. Of course, IMHO.

> - Comparing to another language: what is the situation e.g. with
>   Haskell? We have ob-haskell.el (thanks to Lawrence Bottorff). In my
>   distro at least, I have Haskell mode installed separately. Should we
>   then move ob-haskell.el into the package supplying Haskell mode?

It would make sense. The same arguments apply.

> - Somehow I also think that the proposed solution would be close to the
>   idea of including ob-C.el into a C compiler distribution.

C compiler distribution does not ship with C major mode. So, it is
different.

Best,
Ihor

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Jarmo Hurri]

Greetings Ihor.

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hurri@iki.fi> writes:
>
>>> Then, would it make more sense to include ob-asymptote.el into the
>>> asymptote distribution?
>>
>> I do not think this is a good idea:
>>
>> - I am not involved in the development of asymptote, so this solution
>>   would put maintenance of ob-asymptote.el beyond my reach.
>
> AFAIK, it is developed publicly. Anyone can open a pull request or
> post on their forum.

It might be possible, but certainly not as straightforward as working
with Org.

> The advantage of maintaining ob-asymptote.el in the main asymptote
> repo is that people who are intimately familiar with the asymptote
> features can directly contribute and enhance the Org
> integration. Moreover, distributing together with the asymptote means
> no headache with back-compatibility issues.
>
> Maintaining on Org side will have an advantage of using the latest
> additions to Org babel features.
>
> I feel like it is more important to make use of the asymptote features
> if its devs are going to be interested. Of course, IMHO.

I have a very bad feeling about tying ob-asymptote.el with Asymptote,
and I am trying to put my finger on this feeling. I think the problem is
this one.

ob-asymptote.el is coupled very loosely with Asymptote. Basically the
only thing ob-asymptote.el requires from Asymptote is the ability to
call the executable with some established parameters.

Then again, ob-asymptote.el is coupled much more tightly with Org. It
uses many more properties of Org (Babel) than of the Asymptote
program.

As a result, changes in Org are much more likely to affect
ob-asymptote.el than changes in Asymptote. I think basic software
development rules of thumb suggest that ob-asymptote.el should then be
bundled with Org.

All the best,

Jarmo

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hurri@iki.fi> writes:

>> The advantage of maintaining ob-asymptote.el in the main asymptote
>> repo is that people who are intimately familiar with the asymptote
>> features can directly contribute and enhance the Org
>> integration. Moreover, distributing together with the asymptote means
>> no headache with back-compatibility issues.
>>
>> Maintaining on Org side will have an advantage of using the latest
>> additions to Org babel features.
>>
>> I feel like it is more important to make use of the asymptote features
>> if its devs are going to be interested. Of course, IMHO.
>
> I have a very bad feeling about tying ob-asymptote.el with Asymptote,
> and I am trying to put my finger on this feeling. I think the problem is
> this one.
>
> ob-asymptote.el is coupled very loosely with Asymptote. Basically the
> only thing ob-asymptote.el requires from Asymptote is the ability to
> call the executable with some established parameters.
>
> Then again, ob-asymptote.el is coupled much more tightly with Org. It
> uses many more properties of Org (Babel) than of the Asymptote
> program.
>
> As a result, changes in Org are much more likely to affect
> ob-asymptote.el than changes in Asymptote. I think basic software
> development rules of thumb suggest that ob-asymptote.el should then be
> bundled with Org.

From my point of view ob-asymptote.el is as bare bones as babel library
can be. It does not use any fancy Org babel features like sessions,
error display of converting the output to various :results output
options.

In contrast, it does a lot of work trying to convert Elisp types to
Asymptote in `org-babel-asymptote-var-to-asymptote`.

Of course, my view is a subject of discussion. Or maybe you have plans
to implement advanced Org babel features for Asymptote. IDK.

From my point of view, any kind of new functionality in ob-asymptote.el
requires a deep knowledge about the Asymptote programming - the
knowledge most of the Org devs lack. At the same time, changes in Org
babel core functionality are unlikely to cause any issues in
ob-asymptote - we try our best to keep backwards compatibility with
third-party babel packages anyway.

Best,
Ihor

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Jarmo Hurri]

Hello again.

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hurri@iki.fi> writes:
>> As a result, changes in Org are much more likely to affect
>> ob-asymptote.el than changes in Asymptote. I think basic software
>> development rules of thumb suggest that ob-asymptote.el should then
>> be bundled with Org.
>
> From my point of view ob-asymptote.el is as bare bones as babel
> library can be. It does not use any fancy Org babel features like
> sessions, error display of converting the output to various :results
> output options.
>
> In contrast, it does a lot of work trying to convert Elisp types to
> Asymptote in `org-babel-asymptote-var-to-asymptote`.

Fair point. Then again, the involved datatypes of Asymptote are,
practically, immutable.

I can not resist pointing out that we are having this discussion because
of changes in Org, not because of changes in Asymptote. I consider Org
much more volatile than Asymptote.

But I might be digressing. A bit of a summary:

- I embrace a (any) maintained feature which extends the applicability
  of Org without compromising "the core." I have had great moments
  noticing that Org already supports something new I need.

- Asymptote is brilliant. :-) I hope I can provide connectivity to Org
  for current and future users. When I shrivel away, this support might
  get buried next to me.

- Org contrib basically advertises itself as unmaintained. While that
  may change, and there is in fact a request to help maintain the
  add-ons on the github page, I am pessimistic. I would not install it,
  so I doubt others would either.

- I see Org as the logical place for ob-asymptote.el. If this is
  rejected, I may try inclusion into Asymptote if it is not an uphill
  battle.

> From my point of view, any kind of new functionality in
> ob-asymptote.el requires a deep knowledge about the Asymptote
> programming - the knowledge most of the Org devs lack. At the same
> time, changes in Org babel core functionality are unlikely to cause
> any issues in ob-asymptote - we try our best to keep backwards
> compatibility with third-party babel packages anyway.

Does this suggest that, from the point of view of Org, the risk of
supporting ob-asymptote.el is minimal?

All the best,

Jarmo

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hurri@iki.fi> writes:

> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hurri@iki.fi> writes:
>>> As a result, changes in Org are much more likely to affect
>>> ob-asymptote.el than changes in Asymptote. I think basic software
>>> development rules of thumb suggest that ob-asymptote.el should then
>>> be bundled with Org.
>>
>> From my point of view ob-asymptote.el is as bare bones as babel
>> library can be. It does not use any fancy Org babel features like
>> sessions, error display of converting the output to various :results
>> output options.
>>
>> In contrast, it does a lot of work trying to convert Elisp types to
>> Asymptote in `org-babel-asymptote-var-to-asymptote`.
>
> Fair point. Then again, the involved datatypes of Asymptote are,
> practically, immutable.
>
> I can not resist pointing out that we are having this discussion because
> of changes in Org, not because of changes in Asymptote. I consider Org
> much more volatile than Asymptote.

Well. You convinced me. If Asymptote has very stable syntax and major
features, it probably makes more sense to maintain it within Org or
within Org community.

> But I might be digressing. A bit of a summary:
>
> - I embrace a (any) maintained feature which extends the applicability
>   of Org without compromising "the core." I have had great moments
>   noticing that Org already supports something new I need.

I agree that it is nice, but we cannot, unfortunately support all the
programming languages out there. As long a some specific language has a
maintainer, things are fine, but in long term it is only reliable to
support popular ones + possibly GNU projects (as Org is a part of GNU, and it is kind of obligation).

> - Asymptote is brilliant. :-) I hope I can provide connectivity to Org
>   for current and future users. When I shrivel away, this support might
>   get buried next to me.
>
> - Org contrib basically advertises itself as unmaintained. While that
>   may change, and there is in fact a request to help maintain the
>   add-ons on the github page, I am pessimistic. I would not install it,
>   so I doubt others would either.

> - I see Org as the logical place for ob-asymptote.el. If this is
>   rejected, I may try inclusion into Asymptote if it is not an uphill
>   battle.

Because it is unmaintained. Beside that note, we also ask potential
maintainers to go ahead to adopt the unmaintained pieces. Those pieces
can then move to ELPA/non-GNU ELPA and be maintained properly.

>> From my point of view, any kind of new functionality in
>> ob-asymptote.el requires a deep knowledge about the Asymptote
>> programming - the knowledge most of the Org devs lack. At the same
>> time, changes in Org babel core functionality are unlikely to cause
>> any issues in ob-asymptote - we try our best to keep backwards
>> compatibility with third-party babel packages anyway.
>
> Does this suggest that, from the point of view of Org, the risk of
> supporting ob-asymptote.el is minimal?

Not necessarily. I just expressed doubts about long-term
maintainability. As long as there is a person maintaining ob-asymptote,
things should be fine. Especially if there is a good test coverage and
WORG documentation.

Best,
Ihor

Re: The fate of ob-asymptote.el

[Jarmo Hurri]

Hello Ihor.

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Well. You convinced me. If Asymptote has very stable syntax and major
> features, it probably makes more sense to maintain it within Org or
> within Org community.

If Bastien shows the green light, I am looking forward to giving back
something to the community: maintanance and a good set of illustrative
examples on worg. For the past 2 years I have just been utilizing what
you guys have been doing, in a state of haze, for obvious reasons.

>> - I embrace a (any) maintained feature which extends the
>> applicability of Org without compromising "the core." I have had
>> great moments noticing that Org already supports something new I
>> need.
>
> I agree that it is nice, but we cannot, unfortunately support all the
> programming languages out there. As long a some specific language has
> a maintainer, things are fine, but in long term it is only reliable to
> support popular ones + possibly GNU projects (as Org is a part of GNU,
> and it is kind of obligation).

Makes sense. As long as there is a maintainer, a more exotic language
can be supported. Perhaps my contribution will increase the popularity
of Asymptote within the Org community and therefore the probability of
long term survival of ob-asymptote.el.

> As long as there is a person maintaining ob-asymptote, things should
> be fine. Especially if there is a good test coverage and WORG
> documentation.

I will be in standby mode until Bastien tells me what happens next.

All the best,

Jarmo