* [babel] Org-babel vs NoWeb (and the like)
@ 2009-12-04 11:13 Sébastien Vauban
2010-01-06 15:37 ` Eric Schulte
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sébastien Vauban @ 2009-12-04 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ
Hi Dan and Eric,
Please find here a document written with both NoWeb and Org-babel, to be able
to compare and explain the differences between both approaches.
What's *nice with Org-babel* is:
- code is easy to edit in the source buffer with =C-c '= (highlighted
correctly in the indirect buffer)
- source (Org text + code) is much, much more readable (with nicely
highlighted sections)
- all the source blocks are correctly colored in the PDF, according to the
source language (via listings) -- even the ones that are not tangled
Org-babel source: http://www.mygooglest.com/sva/ecm-babel-org.org
Org-babel PDF: http://www.mygooglest.com/sva/ecm-babel-org.pdf
What's *not nice with Noweb* is:
- source (Org text + code) is even less readable than LaTeX, and not really
correctly fontified by current Emacs modes (being "extended" LaTeX)
- code must be tangled through an external command
- source blocks are just verbatim (with yellow background in my case), but no
language-sensitive highlighting
- only tangled outputs that are re-imported in the document through listings
can be highlighted correctly in the PDF
Noweb source: http://www.mygooglest.com/sva/ecm-noweb.nw
Noweb PDF: http://www.mygooglest.com/sva/ecm-noweb.pdf
Though, what's *nice with Noweb* is:
- every code snippet is identified (left, in the PDF) by a counter, for easy
reference (page + order position) from another block of code
- every code snippet lists where it's used (right, in the PDF), using the same
counters
- tangled code is correctly indented
These last points are, for me, the only "drawbacks" (a "big word" -- dunno
which other word to use, not native speaker) of Org-babel for literate
programming.
Would they be fixed, Org-babel would clearly, clearly, clearly out-beats all
alternative I'm aware of (Nuweb and NoWeb)...
Would they never be fixed, I still prefer Org-babel (vs NoWeb)!
Best regards,
Seb
--
Sébastien Vauban
_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [babel] Org-babel vs NoWeb (and the like)
2009-12-04 11:13 [babel] Org-babel vs NoWeb (and the like) Sébastien Vauban
@ 2010-01-06 15:37 ` Eric Schulte
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Eric Schulte @ 2010-01-06 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sébastien Vauban; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Hi Sébastien,
Sorry to take so long to reply. Thanks for this comparison, as someone
with no personal Noweb experience it is very enlightening to hear how it
compares and contrasts with Org-babel. It sounds like the three places
where Org-babel can still improve vs. Noweb are
> - every code snippet is identified (left, in the PDF) by a counter, for easy
> reference (page + order position) from another block of code
> - every code snippet lists where it's used (right, in the PDF), using the same
> counters
> - tangled code is correctly indented
I believe that indentation should be fixed by now, if that's not the
case please shoot me an example where it breaks and I'll take a look.
As for the names and references of source-code blocks there is certainly
still work to be done on the babel side. I just released some code
which does add source-code block names to exported output (using
listings in latex, and as a <label> in html) however it is currently not
as *attractive* or *informative* as the Noweb block identification.
- attractive :: as opposed to relying on the listings package to name
source-code blocks it should be possible to implement better
looking source-code block names by including more raw LaTeX in the
org-babel exporter. My feeling is that the centering of the title
in the current export is more difficult to read than would be a
left-justified title as used in the Noweb export. Also, it would
be nice to better associate the title with the code. Noweb
accomplishes this by actually pushing the source-code block name
into the block of source-code. I'm wary of moving too far in that
direction as I don't want the complication of interfering with the
internals of the listings package. If anyone with more LaTeX-foo
than myself can propose a raw latex solution I can handle fitting
it into the exporter.
- informative :: it should be possible for Org-babel to collect the
names of every source-code block in which a given block is
referenced. With that information we could then provide a list of
the referencing blocks along with an exported block. As this list
could be quite long (using names rather than numbers) I am not sure
what a good default method for displaying the list would be.
Possibly this information should be displayable separate from the
body of the source-code block with a
#+referenced: source-block-name
line or something similar.
- linking :: It seems like it would be nice to be able to link to
source-code blocks using their names. This features would probably
be useful both inside of org-mode files and in exported LaTeX and
HTML pages. Both of these should be possible through making
the #+srcname: lines act as link targets -- I'm not sure if this
would be hard to implement or if it would trample of existing
Org-mode semantics but it seems to me like it would be handy.
Thanks for reading this rambling reply. The original email has
certainly been food for thought. -- Eric
Sébastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgwmuf@spammotel.com> writes:
> Hi Dan and Eric,
>
> Please find here a document written with both NoWeb and Org-babel, to be able
> to compare and explain the differences between both approaches.
>
> What's *nice with Org-babel* is:
>
> - code is easy to edit in the source buffer with =C-c '= (highlighted
> correctly in the indirect buffer)
> - source (Org text + code) is much, much more readable (with nicely
> highlighted sections)
> - all the source blocks are correctly colored in the PDF, according to the
> source language (via listings) -- even the ones that are not tangled
>
> Org-babel source: http://www.mygooglest.com/sva/ecm-babel-org.org
> Org-babel PDF: http://www.mygooglest.com/sva/ecm-babel-org.pdf
>
> What's *not nice with Noweb* is:
>
> - source (Org text + code) is even less readable than LaTeX, and not really
> correctly fontified by current Emacs modes (being "extended" LaTeX)
> - code must be tangled through an external command
> - source blocks are just verbatim (with yellow background in my case), but no
> language-sensitive highlighting
> - only tangled outputs that are re-imported in the document through listings
> can be highlighted correctly in the PDF
>
> Noweb source: http://www.mygooglest.com/sva/ecm-noweb.nw
> Noweb PDF: http://www.mygooglest.com/sva/ecm-noweb.pdf
>
> Though, what's *nice with Noweb* is:
>
> - every code snippet is identified (left, in the PDF) by a counter, for easy
> reference (page + order position) from another block of code
> - every code snippet lists where it's used (right, in the PDF), using the same
> counters
> - tangled code is correctly indented
>
> These last points are, for me, the only "drawbacks" (a "big word" -- dunno
> which other word to use, not native speaker) of Org-babel for literate
> programming.
>
> Would they be fixed, Org-babel would clearly, clearly, clearly out-beats all
> alternative I'm aware of (Nuweb and NoWeb)...
>
> Would they never be fixed, I still prefer Org-babel (vs NoWeb)!
>
> Best regards,
> Seb
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-01-06 15:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-12-04 11:13 [babel] Org-babel vs NoWeb (and the like) Sébastien Vauban
2010-01-06 15:37 ` Eric Schulte
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).