On documenting side: time.to post more on the leo-editor blog :). I think I'll post about full text search next (bigdash stuff) On Aug 9, 2013 3:56 PM, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I am a new user. (actually, I am still testing Leo), >> > > Welcome aboard. Newbies often have the clearest picture of Leo's > failings. All of Leo's core developers take their opinions seriously. > > >> and i could not help noticing that the use of Leo does not seem to be >> very widespread. >> > Very few people talk about it and the user community seems to be quite >> small. >> > > It's hard to say. For example, a single download to a professor can, and > has, represented > > dozens or hundreds of users. This reminds me: Leo should encourage users > to send "postcards" to us so that we can have a better idea of who is > actually using Leo. Randy Pausch's Alice project (Alice.org) used to do > this. Not sure if it still does. > >> In terms of user adoption, it seems to me that Leo is nowhere near that >> of other main text editors. >> > > I think that's right. > > >> Sure, Leo is in a category of its own, being an outlining editor, as >> opposed to a simple editor, but should this not make it more popular, >> instead of more obscure? >> > > Not necessarily. People have a large investment in their existing tool > chain. This makes us all reluctant to make big changes. > > >> I really don't get it. >> From what I have seen, Leo has excellent capabilities. And yet it is >> still a semi-obscure application. >> > > >> What are the reasons for this? Is it just a matter of not being >> publicized enough, or is there something else? Or, let's say, what are the >> complaints that people have against Leo? >> > > Leo's core developers have asked these questions often. It's good to be > reminded of them. > > It's true: I suck as a publicist ;-) But there substantive problems as > well, especially for teams: > > 1. Leo naturally wants to insert sentinels into external files. This is > the only *safe* way to retain outline structure. Many people, especially > those wanting to dis Leo, object to the sentinels. True, there are > alternatives to sentinels (using @auto and @shadow), but they aren't as > powerful as @file. > > 2. Sharing .leo files themselves (rather than sharing the external files) > is problematical. There are workarounds (so-called "ref" files). See the > FAQ entry, How should I use Leo with bzr/git/hg/svn/cvs?, > http://leoeditor.com/FAQ.html#id21. > > Finally, you should realize that it was never my goal to displace emacs or > vim. My reasons for doing Leo were to create a tool that: > > 1. allows me to understand complex computer programs. > 2. expands the power of scripting. > > Those are still my personal focus. Having said that, it's recently become > apparent that documenting what Leo can *already* do has top priority. Here > are the top three items on the list of desired outcomes for Leo: > > 1. Newbies can install Leo without problems. > 2. Newbies can learn Leo's main features easily. > 3. *Good* documentation exists for all important plugins and features. > >> >> Please, help me to understand this puzzle. >> > > HTH. Thanks for your interesting question. > > Edward > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "leo-editor" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
