Hi,
On 20/02/17 13:58, Edward K. Ream wrote:
This has been on my mind recently, in response to recent comments. In
the spirit of Getting Things Done, I am going to get it off my chest.
To be as clear as possible...
I am focused /solely /on making Leo a power tool for developers,
scientists and anyone who wants to deal with /complex/ data. Sure,
that's a "self-fulfilling prophecy". I'm good with that.
Fernando Pérez (Jupyter's co-lead) talks about the differences between
developers and scientist when he mentions exploratory computing (I don't
have the link with me though). The central difference is that
interactivity is central for scientist and that's the origin of IPython
(bringing Interactivity to Python). So there is a real challenge making
a system that is good for both targets, but it is a good challenge
trying to close the gap between them: bringing more interactivity to the
development process, and more dev tools to scientist and people working
with complex data, without asking them start by knowing what a developer
knows. Jupyter Lab [1] could try to close that gap by bringing tools
beyond the notebook to Jupyter. So a self fulfilling prophecy like that
is addressing anyone who wants to deal with complex data is a
challenging one and more interesting that any exclusive prophecy only
for "developers" ;-).
[1] http://jupyterlab.github.io/jupyterlab/
Leo is not somehow invalidated because somebody, somewhere, doesn't
"get" it in 30 seconds. The same is true of tools such as emacs, vim,
Eclipse and org mode.
Leo is not somehow invalidated merely because it has hundreds
(thousands?) of commands, features, plugins and settings. Software
development requires this level of complexity.
Finally, afaik, org mode is not suited to software development. It
lacks @others, and the syntax that delimits code in each node would be
unbearable in large programs. Instead, org-mode is oriented towards
intermixing relatively small snippets of code, possibly with
intermixed comments.
I agree. Complexity or lack of easiness don't invalidate a tool. The
issue is how to present complexity in a progressive way. Org makes this
really good. It was made by a scientist that wanted a GTD outliner
system and evolved to a full reproducible research environment by
leveraging the power of Emacs. Developers could use Emacs underneath and
Scientist and newbies can use Org-mode. I didn't know Org mode when I
started Grafoscopio, but it expresses a similar idea: people interested
in reproducible research and literate computing can use Grafoscopio and
developers can use Pharo and both profiles can go in each direction as
needed/wanted, bridging the gap between interactive documents authors
and software developers.
Cheers,
Offray
--
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.
