On 1/5/2011 7:37 PM, Eric Schulte wrote:
Hi Tim,
I'm confused as to what parts of LP practice are not supported by
Org-mode. Are you aware that Org-mode files can be exported to formats
more suitable for publication and human consumption (e.g. woven). See
http://orgmode.org/manual/Exporting.html
I am truly impressed with the number of formats org-mode can
support. Of course, I expect nothing less as a heavy emacs user.
Tim Daly<d...@axiom-developer.org> writes:
I looked at org-mode.
Note that 'literate programming' involves writing literature
for other people to read. The executable code is included as
a 'reduction to practice' but the emphasis is on describing
the ideas. Rich has some powerful ideas that he has reduced
to running code. What we need to do is start with a description
of the ideas and bridge the gap to the actual implementation.
Ideally you can read a literate program like a novel, from
beginning to end, and find that every line of code has a
'motivation' for being introduced. The side-effect is that
there is a reason why the idea is implemented in a particular
way rather than 'just because it worked'. Literate programming
tends to improve code quality because you have to explain it.
Emacs org-mode, on the other hand, is a useful development
technology but it really isn't literate programming.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts as to why Org-mode is not a
literate programming tool.
I never said org-mode wasn't a 'literate programming tool'. It is clearly an
outstanding version of a literate programming tool. What I said was that
org-mode "really isn't literate programming".
I am trying to distinguish between tool and task.
Literate programming, as a tool, can be done with notepad.
Literate programming, as a task, is a radical change of mindset.
It is at least as difficult as going from Object Oriented programming
to Functional programming.
The point of the clojure.pamphlet file isn't to highlight how it
was created (emacs, fundamental mode). The point is to begin to
think about documentation as an "ideas to implementation", speaking
from "human to human", way of looking at the problem.
I made the machinery as simple as possible so people could experiment
with a new way of creating software. It is hardly new, and it isn't
my idea (see Knuth). I just have come to understand that it is a very
efficient and effective way to develop software that can "live".
Clojure breaks with the past in many ways. I am advocating breaking
with the past in terms of the 'little files' idea, 'javadoc', and
other ways of documenting. And, since Advocacy is Volunteering, I
pretty much put myself into a position where I had to demonstrate
what I was advocating. Thus, the Clojure in Small Pieces book.
Thanks -- Eric
Tim Daly
On 1/4/2011 9:34 AM, Seth wrote:
have you guys checked out org-mode + babel for emacs? This would be an
excellent place to start to do literate programming. Interesting
ideas ... maybe i will try this in my own code ...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
