Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole

[raman]

Tom <address@hidden> writes:

Also, this is an excellent example of the purist vs pragmatist view --
getting closer to home, Common Lisp or Scheme proponents have likely
said the same about emacs Lisp:-)> Robert Weiner <rsw <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> 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, 
>
> In the real word these abstractions always lag behind practical
> development like adding new features, because development constantly
> moves forward amd while you come up with an abstraction, the new 
> developments may already have surpassed that.
>
> In addition, emacs doesn't have a surplus of developers who have
> the ability and time to rewrite a huge piece of existing code, so
> striving for clean implementation rewrites is not really practical
> with the current developer base. There's lot of work to do already
> without rewrites too.
>
>
>> Emacs should have excellent tools in these
>> areas.  Has anyone examined the org-mode code to see whether it is well
>> written or not?
>
> Org is an excellent, practical tool. That's why people use it.
>
> It may have room for improvement in its internals, but it can be
> said about other parts of emacs also. In software development there 
> is rarely time to rewrite a big piece of existing code and it's
> especially true for volunteer projects with constrained resources.

--