Re: [O] how to change the headline starter *

[Aankhen]

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 18:29, Pieter Praet <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:21:01 +0200, Philipp Haselwarter <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
>> No need to go all flaming because someone thinks the looks of the
>> software matter. TBH I don't see what's wrong with that or in what way
>> that's the opposite of efficiency.
>
> What I considered "wrong" about it was the OP implying -twice- that a
> frivolous feature request such as this could be marked as being a
> full-caps "BUG" [1,2].
>
> Considering all the time and effort Org-mode's selfless developers have
> sacrificed to deliver this mindblowing piece of software to us, this
> could easily be perceived as an insult in my opinion, regardless of
> whether or not it was intentional.

I agree.

> I know that this doesn't justify the tone of my impulsive reply in any
> way whatsoever, and I do apologize for disrupting the serene atmosphere
> which characterizes this list, but... I sent it, and I stand behind it 100%.
>
> Besides, how could someone who cares about how slick and shiny their
> software looks *possibly* end up using Emacs?

Pretty easy: you see that Emacs massively increases your productivity,
and you use it.  The genius of Emacs lies not in being ugly or being
minimalistic (now that would be something) but in being an amazingly
customizable platform.  Being nice to look at would not in any way
automatically render it useless.

>> Abstracting the user interface from the logic is an important paradigm,
>> especially for something like org-mode that you want to run on a wide
>> range of devices – think 24" monitors vs 3" mobile devices. You don't
>> want to have too much of the looks hardcoded.
>
> Exactly! That is, believe it or not, the whole point.
>
> What the OP is suggesting effectively nullifies the separation between
> model and view in that it would allow changing Org-mode's outlining
> markup at its very core, potentially leading to a wildgrowth of "custom"
> markup formats which could hardly be called "plain text" anymore, not to
> mention the avalanche of PEBCAK-related bug reports it may unleash.

I’m very confused.  Couldn’t the compatibility and standardization
problems be avoided entirely by indicating the character at the top of
the file if it differs from the norm?

And why would, say, changing the headline starter from ‘*’ to ‘+’ make
it any less of a plain text format?  Or, for that matter, changing it
to ‘→’?  These are all valid UTF-8 characters that any Unicode-aware
application is expected to understand and deal with.

>> Now if you don't find that to be one of /your/ personal top priorities –
>> fine, don't bother. But going all bashing because someone insists on his
>> opinion that this is important? I don't see what you're trying to
>> achieve here.
>
> Pretty much since the very beginning, Org-mode has been described as:
>  "Org is a mode for keeping notes, maintaining TODO lists, and doing
>  project planning with a fast and effective plain-text system."
>
> Seeing as how this description hasn't changed ever since, one can safely
> assume that keeping the markup format sane (i.e. plain-text) and
> consistent (i.e. semi-standardized, so as not to complicate joint
> project planning) is a top priority for the entire Org-mode community.

Re: plain text and standardization, see the above two paragraphs.

> As for my personal priorities: I didn't start using Emacs solely because
> Org-mode *requires* me to, but because I care about getting my work done,
> as efficiently as possible. Mac/Windows-influenced non-features (and
> the code overhead they introduce) will undoubtedly interfere with that.
>
> IOW, a lack of certain "features" is an essential feature in and of itself.

Have you looked at Emacs recently? “Minimalistic” is the opposite of
what it is.  The fact that you use it ought to show in itself that
minimalism isn’t what you want.

> I guess what I'm trying to achieve is to keep Org-mode from slowly and
> inconspicuously devolving into something featuring transparent blinking
> 3D unicorn overlays with cherries on top. That's a gross exaggeration of
> course (one would hope), but I'm sure you catch my drift.

Certainly.  I still don’t understand how this justifies all the fuss
over a request to change the headline starter.

Aankhen