Hi! * Jonathan Arkell <jonath...@criticalmass.com> wrote: > I am a huge advocate of using org files and literate programming in your > config files.
Great. I am not completely convinced to convert my config to org/babel but I am not oppose either. Not sure, if there are that many advantages, that it is worth my effort, that's all. > A few reasons why: > - Makes it easy to logically group sections of your init and > configuration Well, this is also possible with pure elisp and comments. Folding is a different topic tough. > - Agenda tags search on your initialization file? Yes please! > Extremely useful for those "cross-cutting" bits. I have tags like > "keybinding", "osx" and "linux", and working on others as appropriate. Hm. Interesting but I guess this is not my use-case (except for :keybinding:). I do use "(when (system-is-linux) ... )" and similar all over my configuration. Although I am a huge fan of tagging, I don't see the use when editing my emacs config (yet). > - Add TODOs to your init file. I am using ~/org/mainfile.org -> "* shorts" -> "** TODO do this :hostname:" all the time. Also for my config tasks. No worries: I do see your point but I like to have all my sysadmin-tasks combined in "mainfile.org/shorts". So maybe this is just me. > Here is my example, but I stand on the shoulders of giants: > > https://github.com/jonnay/emagicians-starter-kit Thanks for sharing! One thing which I would appreciate would be that it is more easy to write documentation (including URLs; outside of elisp sections) in org. Naive question: Are there any performance issues with not being able to compile my config.org to config.elc as it is possible with config.el files? -- Karl Voit
