Re: Differences between Org-Mode and Hyperbole

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Tom <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 21:11:54 +0000 (UTC)
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > 
> > Besides, I think the fact that Richard was turned off by Org so early
> > in his attempts to learn it should tell us something important.
> > Richard cannot be accused of being an Emacs outsider, or of not being
> > capable of learning complex Emacs stuff.
> 
> No one doubts his ability to learn complex stuff, but Richard
> often says he doesn't have time and I don't know how much time
> he spent on it

With his efficiency I came to know and appreciate through many years,
I'm sure he spent "enough time" on it.  Please accept that as an
assumption that doesn't need to be questioned.

> but Org is a complex package which cannot be appreciated by just
> giving it a quick glance.

Which is exactly the problem we are talking about.  Does a package
that includes several major and disparate feature have to be so
complex to learn and start using, when just one of its features is
required?  Is there a better way to design such packages?  These are
the questions that should be the core of this discussion.

> It's very much like Emacs which if a new a user gives it a quick try 
> he will say it's strange looking editor with arcane keybindings and
> that's it.

As I said, RMS is not a new user of Emacs.  So that analogy is not
just wrong, it's misleading: it takes us in the wrong direction.  It
would be best to avoid it in this discussion, IMO.