I think every time we have one of these impromptu "let's make Leo great again" brainstorming sessions I think the core users (which are represented on these forums) are end up being really hard on Leo (and by proxy you Edward).
I've been through a couple of these so my take is that the suggestions/criticisms aren't trying to invalidate Leo. There is a truth though, Leo is not accessible to a large group of individuals, but it is the group of individuals who are not willing to put the time in. There were definitely some hurdles in the very beginning but you've acknowledged them and dedicated large swaths of time to removing the hurdles. I think the other side of the suggestions/criticisms is the feeling I think most core users of Leo have which is, "I know there is power there, I just can't dig fast enough". I think all of us are looking for is a bigger shovel so we can dig into Leo faster. I believe you've acknowledge this (your dedication to adopting all of the Pyzo niceties). But because you actually listen to your whining users, this process can end up with a lot veiled empty threats, "you had better fix Leo or it'll get left behind." You're already leagues ahead of most developers who simply can't acknowledge where there is room for improvement. And you go beyond, by not only taking care of the bugs and low hanging fruit but constantly improving Leo so that it is continually more capable. I think most people just don't get it, listen up everyone, it's *most just Edward, with a side helping of Terry.* This is an astounding piece of software, not only for what it does that nobody else does, but for the fact that it was wrought by such a small base of support. On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 1:58:30 PM UTC-5, 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. > > 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. > > 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.
