Re: outline-minor-mode and org-mode capabilities for programming languages

[Christopher Dimech]

---------------------
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 at 11:43 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: outline-minor-mode and org-mode capabilities for programming 
> languages
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-10 13:01]:
> > > I don't believe Org mode is solution for everything. In my Hyperscope
> > > system and also Website Revision System specific system, I have no
> > > limitation on what mode or text processor to use.
> >
> > No, only when one wants org-like features.  The plan should be that
> > outline-minor-mode handles them, which you have outlined.
>
> Literate programming is descriptional programming. It is just a matter
> of marking specific parts of text to be descriptions and specific
> parts to be program code.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming#Example
>
> By using text pre-processors one can easily do literate
> programming. And I would say it is useful especially if other people
> are to learn from the code. We do that as human too little, and thus
> benefit too little from each other.
>
> How about instead of embedding code in the text, to embed text in the
> code?

Originally I had bought in the idea of Knuth and others, but did not buy on 
their
results with literate programming.  What I find valuable is the the development
of protowriting that communicates limited information.   They maybe a parser
that goes through the to obtain a more literate translation.


> In the new GNU Hyperbole package there is simple alias function that
> creates a button like:
>
> (defal 'my-tag 'my-function)
>
> then any button in the text shown as:
>
> <my-tag some arguments here> would be activated with M-RET and Emacs
> would jump to the corresponding location.
>
> Now if we change the delimiters to be ( and ) we can then define:
>
> (defal 'defun 'jump-to-defun-literate-programming-index)
>
> Which would then make the first line of the below a button, or hyperlink:
>
> (defun something (and more here)
>    more)
>
> Emacs has a built-in literate programming features as `C-h f' on the
> function brings us to the documentation source. But what if we want to
> elaborate the function and make it somewhat better, like Knuth's work,
> maybe we want to elaborate it in any markup like TeX or LateX or
> Markdown, or in special file, database node, or remote URL?
>
> That is where embedding text into the code comes in. There need not be
> visible text in the code, but one could click and get the same
> function elaborated with the markup source, markup result such as PDF,
> and one could jump back to the code.

The strategy of hiding is good.  But I promote the idea of having separate
files.  Documentation in code will be limited, more elaborate schemes for
documunetation on a separate file.  Most times the code is the place to check
things.

> > > Org mode IS bloated. It has everything what one needs and much more
> > > what I don't need. It is based on Outline mode and thus I like often
> > > invoking Outline mode as that satisfies basic needs without fiddling
> > > with Org mode keybindings and whatever other additional not necessary
> > > functions. Surely I do use Org mode, but when it is needed.
> >
> > Isee that org-mode should not have handled programming languages.  That
> > should have been a new programming major mode for multi-language coding.
> >
> > I much like the original idea of org-mode and keeping close to that.
>
> Org mode is derivate from Outline mode.
>
> > > We have all function well described, indexed, findable, locatable,
> > > usable in programming, we have it all, but IMHO integration is not
> > > adequate for my standard. I have expected more of computing in 21st
> > > century.
> >
> > Welcome to the club of forward thinking.  There is so much work to do
> > and so much planning.  I have agreed with Eric Raymond when he said that
> > even an idiot can code.
>
> Hahahhha. You know people laugh when they find some truth...
>
> > > How about tag based programming? Just think what you want to do, and
> > > other tags appear. Like STRING --- CUT, FIRST PART, LAST PART, FIND
> > > ANYWHERE IN THE STRING, SPLIT, CONVERT TO LIST, CHARS, or LIST --
> > > REMOVE DUPLICATES, REVERSE etc. Tags could be shown on screen, user
> > > just clicks on it and decides relations, something similar to
> > > https://scratch.mit.edu -- where children program animations. More
> > > literate, more meanings, just ideas and intentions that result in a
> > > program.
> >
> > Too much literate and you loose conciseness.  As in mathematics, if
> > things become too literate you would not be able to see a proof you
> > can understand in a few pages.  A more mathematical approach to
> > things would help in dramatic ways.
>
> Oh, yes I agree, that is quite different concept. We as humans have
> the inborn unwillingness to think, though we think all the time, but
> nobody is forcing us to make analysis and conclusions with some
> quality. When it comes to making analysis, people will rather tend to
> skip it, unless they are truly interested in the subject.
>
> In other words, don't make it too literate for illiterates.

There has to be a background and foundation.  For instance, magnetism is one of 
those
things that's just too difficult to understand, except through an elaborate 
education
in physics.  In computing, we have not arrived at that stage yet.

> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
> https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
>
>