I meant: "So a self fulfilling prophecy 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" ;-)".
Cheers,
Offray
On 20/02/17 18:15, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
