On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 12:45 PM, SegundoBob <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Frédérick Giasson's org-mode literate programming is probably very similar > to what you did with Leo-Editor and ultimately abandoned. I believe you > abandoned it primarily because it was more trouble than it was worth. That > is, it impeded rather than helped. Is this more or less right? > Yes. In the History of Leo chapter I say: "Late in 1997 I wrote a Print command to typeset an outline. Printing (Weaving) is supposedly a key feature of literate programming. Imagine my surprise when I realized that such a “beautiful” program listing was almost unintelligible; all the structure inherent in the outline was lost! I saw clearly that typesetting, no matter how well done, is no substitute for explicit structure." Furthermore, experience shows that sections are a truly wretched way of organizing code. They should be used only for languages like html that lack classes or function. Within Leo's code base, sections are used primarily for imports. > There are obvious ways to do in Leo-Editor what Giasson does in org-mode. > There are probably not so obvious difficulties. Consequently, you and > others may find Giasson's blog post interesting. > I wrote Leo so people like Giasson would find Leo interesting ;-) In particular, it is straightforward to pass any text to any language processor in an external process, and that is all he would need to do to run clojure programs from Leo. A clojure importer would complete the package. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
