one thing about org that i think has been making it complex, in addition to number of features, is non-orthogonality.
On 7/13/21, Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Tom Gillespie <tgb...@gmail.com> writes: > > [snip] > >> >> Once I wrap up the formal grammar for org, one of the next things I >> plan to work on is a clear specification for org babel. This is >> critical because so many of the suggestions that come in deal with >> individuals' specific problems and thus fail to account for how such >> features interact with existing features and how the newly proposed >> feature would block some other features in the future, confuse users, >> etc. Such suggestions also often fail to account for increased >> complexity, nor have they been exposed to a sufficient number of >> examples to reveal fundamental ambiguities in how they could be >> interpreted. The issues with variable behavior between ob langs for >> :pre :post :prologue :epilogue etc. are already enough to keep us busy >> for quite some time. >> > > Yes, that clearly summs up my concerns as well. Often, a 'fix' for some > problem can seem straight-forward, possibly even trivial, when > considered only within one person's use case/workflow. Part of what > makes org so powerful is the level of flexibility it supports. However, > this flexibility makes it extremely difficult to consider, or even know > about, all the existing use cases. > > I suspect that once we have some formal specifications for babel, the > next step will be to develop some good unit tests to verify these > specifications. This would at least highlight/alert developers to > unforeseen impact from changes and alert them to things they may > not have considered. > >> With regard to this thread in particular, it is of some interest, but >> there are fundamental issues, including the fact that certain >> languages (e.g. racket) expect module code to exist somewhere on the >> file system. There are ways around many of these issues, in fact there >> are likely many ways around any individual issue, so org babel needs >> to systematically consider the issues and provide a clear >> specification, or at least a guide for how such cases should be >> handled. >> >> To give an example from one of my continual pain points: I start >> writing python or racket in an org src block and then I want it to be >> a library so that it can be reused by other code both inside and >> outside the org file without having to resort to noweb. >> > > This is an interesting point. I think a number of languages have > challenges here. I run into very similar issues with Clojure. > > To some extent, I think this is a grey area within the literate > programming paradigm. The original literate programming model was > developed at a time when most languages were compiled rather then > interpreted. You generated source code, compiled it and then ran it. > > These days, many 'modern' languages are based around an interpreter and > concepts like 'just in time' compilation. In org mode, things become > even more complex because in addition to generation (tangling) of code, > we also want to have evaluation of code blocks, plus we have added the > concept of 'sessions'. > >> What is the best way to handle this? I don't know. Right now I tangle >> things and resort to awful hacks for the reuse-in-this-org-file case, but >> I'm guessing there is a better generic solution which would allow _any_ >> org block to be exported as a library instead of nowebbed in. >> >> Before jumping for any particular suggestion for how to handle this >> we need to explore the diversity of cases that various ob langs >> present, so that we can find a solution that will work for all of >> them. After all, packaging code to a library for reuse is an >> extremely common pattern that org babel should be able to >> abstract, but it is a major undertaking, not just the addition of a >> keyword here and there. >> > > Agree. I'm not convinced we really understand the requirements here and > more exploration and specification is required. The more we add 'simple' > extensions, options, keywords etc the more likely it is we will make > this a much harder process and will likely result in even larger > 'breakage' once we do define a clearer specification. > >> In short I suggest that we issue a general moratorium on new org babel >> feature suggestions until we can stabilize what we already have and >> provide a clear specification for correct behavior. Until we have that >> spec >> we could encourage users to create extensions that implement those >> features. >> > > Yes. While it might sound harsh or overly limiting, I do think such a > moratorium may be required. We may be able to lift it once we have some > core specifications in place. We would still accept bug fixes (though we > may need to provide some clarity on what is a bug fix and what is a > feature enhancement/change - I regularly see posts flagged as bug fixes > which are actually feature enhancements or extensions). >> >> PS The other next thing that I am working on might be another way out >> for this particular feature request. Namely, it is simplifying and >> extending org keyword syntax so that new keywords (with options) and >> associated keywords can be specified using keyword syntax within a >> single org file. This would make it possible to get useful high level >> keyword behavior in a single file without burdening the core >> implementation with more special cases for associated keywords, and it >> would allow users to write small elisp functions that could do some of >> what is suggested here, all without need to add anything to the core >> org implementation. > > Sounds interesting. To some extent, recognising there may be at least > two types of code blocks (library code, executable/driver code) and at > least two types of languages (compiled/interpreted) may help identify > base code block permutation and required options, keywords etc. However, > we are unlikely to find a definitive set which supports all use > cases/workflows and the ability to easily extend/customise behaviours > would be very useful. > -- > Tim Cross > > -- The Kafka Pandemic Please learn what misopathy is. https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html
