From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sam kleinman Subject: Re: Re: Literate Programming with Org mode Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:30:52 -0400 Message-ID: <20090731203052.GC1732@issac.linlan> References: <87my6ordhh.fsf@mundaneum.com> <1e5bcefd0907280946r7b2eb7b9lac80ddc813fa9809@mail.gmail.com> <874oswpmk1.fsf@mundaneum.com> <20090728215355.GA5609@issac.linlan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MWyko-0002HC-3h for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:31:02 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MWykj-0002CG-9c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:31:01 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37316 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MWykj-0002Bx-4O for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:30:57 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.210.172]:62898) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MWyki-0004bQ-ON for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:30:56 -0400 Received: by yxe2 with SMTP id 2so4136099yxe.14 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric Schulte Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:01:36AM -0600, Eric Schulte wrote: > I think the difference between these two is that in LP the "product" is > the executable piece of software, where as in RR the "product" is the > document itself. This is true, and I think the explanation suffers somewhat as a result of this. But I don't think the demarcation you present is as significant as it seems from your explanation. Perhaps we can think of the example I provided as being one of "reproducible research by means of literate programming." The Sweave stuff, particularly in cases like the one I describe (and arguably, when "done right") I think works to transform the "product" of research from a static document to an "executable document," of sorts. The analysis (the research?) happens, (at least theoretically) in real time, and the document is just a snapshot/representation of this: another output of the program. Indeed the programming of the generation of a document, no matter how complex, is not the "sexiest" expression of the programmer's art, but I think it still counts. And to be fair, Sweave/LP approaches to research reporting, doesn't include reproducible data collection techniques/documentation which is a big part of RR, at least in my mind. I'm interested in you project (a lot, actually) but I must admit that I'm not much of a numbers guy any more, as if I ever was one. :) Cheers, sam -- tycho(ish) @ garen@tychoish.com http://www.tychoish.com/ http://www.criticalfutures.com/ "don't get it right, get it written" -- james thurber