Think I agree. This is close to how I use org as well. For me, org pulls it together - I have data/information in postgres, sqlite, maildirs, filesystem, etc. Notes, todos, journal, bookmarks and documents are in org. I use org as the way to assemble and prsent this information and as an authoring tool, exporting to other formats when necessary. My planning is done in org and I use org as a literate programming envrionment for database work (I work as a DBA), elisp and scripting.
For sql it is really great as there are few good systems for working with sql that also support version control. Using org and git, I can get the best of both worlds. When it comes to programming, I tend to use more 'native' environments, especially when a REPL is involved. My contact management requirements are small as it is just for personal stuff. For work, I need to use the enterprise CRM because the information is shared across the organisation and because of the complex legislation regarding personal information management. Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> writes: > Neil Jerram <neiljer...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I've tried to work on contact conversion and synchronization in the past, >> aiming to merge and unify contacts that I've built up in BBDB, Google >> Contacts, email systems, pre-Android phones, etc. The problematic aspect >> was different systems using different field names and structures, e.g. one >> with separate First Name and Last Name, and another with a combined Name >> field; different approaches to breaking up addresses; additional arbitrary >> notes fields; etc. >> >> With that in mind, I'm curious if the writers on this thread could comment >> on: >> 1. is this situation any better now? > > If by "this situation" you mean fragmentation of data formats and > approaches, I don't think it's getting any better! > >> 2. if you favour using org-contacts or org-vcard, what do you see as the >> benefit of Org as your master contact format, as opposed to say BBDB or >> .vcf? > > I think something similar happens with Org as with happens with Emacs in > general: it's such a nice environment to be working in that people want > to move all their stuff into it. But there are some areas (contact > management, email, large datasets) where Org just isn't going to work as > well as a specialized tool. > > But Org can be an excellent *interface* to those tools, mostly through > dynamic blocks. I've started using small sqlite databases to keep track > of things, and dynamic blocks as sql composers/views, and it works > great. It's very easy to play with the queries, and this is the first > time I'm actually starting to feel comfortable with sql. > > I think in general Org is best used as a compositional tool for data > drawn from elsewhere. > > Eric -- Tim Cross
