Marcin Borkowski <mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes: > so the time has come. Either I'll declare .emacs bankruptcy soon, or > I'll use Org-mode to structure it. > > I googled for a while, but couldn't find what I'm looking for: a list > of options with hints (or links to hints) about how to get started, and > possibly their pros and cons. > > I know that I could use org-babel-load-file, or outshine. What are > other possibilities? What are the caveats (and advantages) of both > (other?) ways?
I'm obviously very biased (as outshine author), but the reason outshine exists is that I became frustrated with my init.org. It was a definite improvement over my former .emacs though, without any Org like structure, but with a strong tendency towards chaos and anarchy ... ;) With outshine I have many of Org-mode's advantages (and using outorg I can turn my elisp file into an org file in a second and have all of them), but its still just about a source-file in emacs-lisp-mode, and thats what makes things convenient, fast and dynamic. This is a typical use-case where the source-code is (much) more important than the text - I almost never go to my init.el to read my comments in there, I always go there to find and modify elisp code, and that should be as quick and easy as possible, with no intermediate steps like calling special-edit-buffers or tangling, and no possible confusion and out-of-sync problems between .el and .org versions of the same file. OTOH, when you consider your init-file as a kind of complex publication to be shared with others, like e.g. Bernt Hansen's famous tutorial, then the text becomes more important and it will feel more natural to keep your configurations in a text-mode like org-mode. Just my 2c -- cheers, Thorsten
