Org-mode and taskpaper

Org-mode and taskpaper

[Carsten Dominik]

Dear all,

the recent discussion about Taskpaper in the thread started
by Clint Laskowski has made me realize how much we have lost
out way with Org-mode.  Org-mode was once a compact and
easy tool just like taskpaper.  In fact, looking at the
features of taskpaper, one might think that they had an older
version of Org-mode as model and goal of their development.

But in the meantime, mostly due to a mountain of demands
from this group, it has become so bloated with mostly
useless features, that all but the most geeky users are
totally confused by this.

Reading this thread has really cost me a lot of sleep, but
I have now come to the conclusion that we need to turn
the tide and downscope Org-mode significantly.  Luckily
I have recently put much effort into splitting org.el
into a number of separate files with separate features.
This allows us a very simple and straight-forward path
for this down-scoping effort.  I can simply try to remove
one of these separate files after the other and then see
how much complaining I will get for this.  In this way,
we can make this process community-based, but I will
need you to frequently update org-mode and to give me
feedback during the process.

Those of you who actively follow the git repository
might have noticed that this morning I have started
by removing org-table.el, the file containing the
table editor.  Unfortunately this also means that the
clocktable support no longer works, but I have always
considered this as a sickening feature anyway, which
tries to streamline our life, but in fact only leads to
more work, and to more time taken away from spending with
partners, kids and friends.

I hope that you can all agree with my conclusion.  If not,
than I am confident that with time you will realize
just how important today's decision was.

- Carsten

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Russell Adams]

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:26:49AM +0200, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> the recent discussion about Taskpaper in the thread started
> by Clint Laskowski has made me realize how much we have lost
> out way with Org-mode.  Org-mode was once a compact and
> easy tool just like taskpaper.  In fact, looking at the
> features of taskpaper, one might think that they had an older
> version of Org-mode as model and goal of their development.
> 
> But in the meantime, mostly due to a mountain of demands
> from this group, it has become so bloated with mostly
> useless features, that all but the most geeky users are
> totally confused by this.
> 
> Reading this thread has really cost me a lot of sleep, but
> I have now come to the conclusion that we need to turn
> the tide and downscope Org-mode significantly.  Luckily
> I have recently put much effort into splitting org.el
> into a number of separate files with separate features.
> This allows us a very simple and straight-forward path
> for this down-scoping effort.  I can simply try to remove
> one of these separate files after the other and then see
> how much complaining I will get for this.  In this way,
> we can make this process community-based, but I will
> need you to frequently update org-mode and to give me
> feedback during the process.
> 
> Those of you who actively follow the git repository
> might have noticed that this morning I have started
> by removing org-table.el, the file containing the
> table editor.  Unfortunately this also means that the
> clocktable support no longer works, but I have always
> considered this as a sickening feature anyway, which
> tries to streamline our life, but in fact only leads to
> more work, and to more time taken away from spending with
> partners, kids and friends.
> 
> I hope that you can all agree with my conclusion.  If not,
> than I am confident that with time you will realize
> just how important today's decision was.
> 
> - Carsten
> 

Carsten,

I certainly agree that refactoring the code to move blocks of
functionality into separate files makes perfect sense. Perhaps some of
the functions could be turned into "plugins" using appropriate hooks.

All successful projects suffer from feature creep. My opinion would be
that when drawing a line for the "core" feature set, ensure that any
existing features can continue to exist as a plugin, optionally
maintained separately. This can reduce the complexity and learning
curve for the core, while allowing us complexity junkies to tinker.

As to tables, I would miss them dearly. They aren't immediately
related to folding outlines or schedules, but I frequently use short
tables for summing information and the exported view is nice.

Perhaps you could post a list of the features you consider core, and
what items border on too complex that you want to trim. I think it
would make for interesting discussion.

Thanks.



------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com

PGP Key ID:     0x1160DCB3           http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/

Fingerprint:    1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F  66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Giovanni Ridolfi]

--- Russell Adams <RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.Com> ha
scritto:

> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:26:49AM +0200, Carsten
> Dominik wrote:

> > Org-mode was once a
> compact and
> > easy tool just like taskpaper.  
[...]
> > I have now come to the conclusion that we need to
> turn
> > the tide and downscope Org-mode significantly. 
[...]
> > This allows us a very simple and straight-forward
> path
> > for this down-scoping effort.  I can simply try to
> remove
> > one of these separate files after the other and
> then see
> > how much complaining I will get for this.  In this
> way,
> > we can make this process community-based, but I
> will
> > need you to frequently update org-mode and to give
> me
> > feedback during the process.
> > 

Well, we can also tell you what are the features of
Org-Mode that we use more frequently so that you can 
feel how Org-Mode is used.

E.g., for me:
Outline, Properties, Clocking time, agenda, links,
export , TODO 
I *can't* live without them. 

To this regard I suggest that somebody 
(e.g. Charles, would you?) can set up a survey,
with the features and the frequency we use it e.g.:

Feature                | %use
------------------------------
Outline                | 100%
built-in-table-editor  |   1%

the community may "vote" and you can have an idea of
what we consider the most useful features.

> My opinion would be
> that when drawing a line for the "core" feature set,
> ensure that any
> existing features can continue to exist as a plugin,
> optionally
> maintained separately. 

+ 1 ! 
we already have worg ( http://www.legito.net/worg/ )
;-)

Again, Carsten,  thanks for Org-Mode,

cheers,

Giovanni


      ___________________________________ 
Scopri il Blog di Yahoo! Mail: trucchi, novità, consigli... e la tua opinione!
http://www.ymailblogit.com/blog/

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Bastien]

Giovanni Ridolfi <giovanni.ridolfi@yahoo.it> writes:

> Well, we can also tell you what are the features of
> Org-Mode that we use more frequently so that you can 
> feel how Org-Mode is used.

Not sure this would be really useful, but I guess many people would be
curious about the result.

I will set up such a survey next week.

I'm not sure about requiring people to estimate usage frequencies.  
A simple ordered list of features (most used coming first) would be
simpler and efficient enough, no?

Giovanni, would you help me by preparing the list of features that we
might ask the user about?

Thanks!

-- 
Bastien

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Leo]

On 2008-04-01 09:03 +0100, Russell Adams wrote:
> As to tables, I would miss them dearly. They aren't immediately
> related to folding outlines or schedules, but I frequently use short
> tables for summing information and the exported view is nice.

The `table' functionality can turn into a new spread sheet package for
Emacs.

-- 
.:  Leo  :.  [ sdl.web AT gmail.com ]  .:  [ GPG Key: 9283AA3F ]  :.

          Use the best OS -- http://www.fedoraproject.org/

Re: Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Carsten Dominik]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Leo wrote:

> On 2008-04-01 09:03 +0100, Russell Adams wrote:
>> As to tables, I would miss them dearly. They aren't immediately
>> related to folding outlines or schedules, but I frequently use short
>> tables for summing information and the exported view is nice.
>
> The `table' functionality can turn into a new spread sheet package for
> Emacs.

Yes, it could, but the really tight integration with org-mode
would be a bit harder to achieve with an external package.
So this will stay in.  You do know that orgtbl-mode is available
to get the table editor into other modes?

- Carsten

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Uwe Jochum]

Carsten,

Message from Apr 01 2008 (09:26):
> Reading this thread has really cost me a lot of sleep, but
> I have now come to the conclusion that we need to turn
> the tide and downscope Org-mode significantly.

this is what I wrote to you some months ago. Some say it is a symbol of
success when a piece of software becomes bigger and bigger because of
endlessly incoming feature requests; but I, personally, am inclined to
think that only a small portion of people will use all those very
special features, while more and more people will be frightened off. So
was I, after having used Orgmode for many, many months --- I decided to
give "Thinking Rock" a try, which is easy to use, integrates with
calendar software and is multi platform software (Java). I must confess
this, and I must confess also that I came back to Orgmode after three
months, because Orgmode has a much faster response time, offers
wonderful features (of which I only use a small part) and can be adapted
to what I want. To have this core functionality (an outliner and a tool
for task management, be it GTD or not) would be perfect and attractive
enough for those being non-programmers and non-geeks, as I am.

So, in short: I understand your conclusion very well, I share your
premises, and I support your decision!

Uwe

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Tassilo Horn]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:

Hi Carsten,

> I hope that you can all agree with my conclusion.  If not, than I am
> confident that with time you will realize just how important today's
> decision was.

I do agree with you.  I only use a tiny subset of org's features:
Outlining, TODOs, Dates, some hyperlinks, the remember integration for
quick notes and tables.  In fact, I converted all the few spreadsheet
tables I use to org-mode, because it offered everything I need and emacs
is always open.

So at least for me loosing the table editor would be sad.

I would suggest another refactoring:

  - Make a subset of org the core which includes everything anybody
    uses, e.g. the outlining, TODOs, dates, links...

  - Everything else comes as plugin a user has to explicitly require in
    his ~/.emacs.

  - Use different keys for the plugins.  For example each plugin could
    have a customizable prefix for all its commands.

I think much of org's complexity comes from the fact, that you tried to
use only very few key bindings to DTRT.  A bit exaggerated one could say
org is fully controllable with C-c C-c.

Bye,
Tassilo

RE: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Egli Christian (KIRO 433)]

> the recent discussion about Taskpaper in the thread started
> by Clint Laskowski has made me realize how much we have lost
> out way with Org-mode.  Org-mode was once a compact and
> easy tool just like taskpaper.  In fact, looking at the
> features of taskpaper, one might think that they had an older
> version of Org-mode as model and goal of their development.

Hm, reading all the answers to this aprils fools gets me a bit worried.
Nobody seems to see the joke and everybody seems to agree that org-mode
is too bloated. 

The good thing is that all those features do not get in your way and you
can start using org-mode as a simple outliner and gradualy move up to
use it for task management, notes taking, website publishing, etc to
finally reach eternal bliss when your entire live is one with org-mode.

Ha, I for one need more features in org-mode. I have M-x
org-organize-my-live implemented in my secret git branch. Unfortunatelly
I'm still waiting for my employer disclaimer to be signed (can you
believe it). So maybe my code will be ready for inclusion by next April
1st.

Christian

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Karsten Heymann]

"Egli Christian (KIRO 433)" <christian.egli@credit-suisse.com> writes:
>> the recent discussion about Taskpaper in the thread started by
>> Clint Laskowski has made me realize how much we have lost out way
>> with Org-mode.  Org-mode was once a compact and easy tool just like
>> taskpaper.  In fact, looking at the features of taskpaper, one
>> might think that they had an older version of Org-mode as model and
>> goal of their development.
>
> Hm, reading all the answers to this aprils fools gets me a bit
> worried. Nobody seems to see the joke and everybody seems to agree
> that org-mode is too bloated.

Now you spoiled it :-)

Yours,
Karsten

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Bastien Guerry]

"Egli Christian (KIRO 433)" <christian.egli@credit-suisse.com> writes:

> Hm, reading all the answers to this aprils fools gets me a bit
> worried.  Nobody seems to see the joke and everybody seems to agree
> that org-mode is too bloated.

:)

I know TaskPaper for quite a long time.  A Mac-friend of mine sent me
the link because he knew I was hooked to Org.  And then we started to
discuss about TaskPaper/Org.  Not really a flame war -- but still.

The interesting thing is that this chat inevitably took the road to the
nano/Emacs topic (yes, hot.)  He thinks Emacs is wrong because its UI
doesn't let newcomers to save a file.  I think Emacs is Emacs and people
coming to it do not only want to try another editor, they want Emacs.
He thinks that whatever people want, Emacs is just a failure in terms of
design.  I think people not using Emacs shouldn't feel so strong about
telling it's crap.  Especially those using nano :)

Etc. Etc.

While thinking back about this discussion drift from the TaskPaper/Org
topic to the nano/Emacs one, here's what come to my mind: what would be
Emacs without its tutorial?  A closed door.

So I believe this would be a *huge* benefit for Org to have its own
tutorial.  Because yes, beginners might be frightened by the size of 
the manual, by the simple act of asking something on this list, or by
spending time looking for the right information on Org websites.

> The good thing is that all those features do not get in your way and
> you can start using org-mode as a simple outliner and gradualy move up
> to use it for task management, notes taking, website publishing, etc
> to finally reach eternal bliss when your entire live is one with
> org-mode.

Exactly.  And this would be even more true with a simple, stable
tutorial in Org!

-- 
Bastien

tutorial: [was: Re: Org-mode and taskpaper]

[Giovanni Ridolfi]

--- Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org> ha scritto:
> 
> what would be
> Emacs without its tutorial?  A closed door.
> 
> So I believe this would be a *huge* benefit for Org
> to have its own tutorial.  

Is it an april fool?  <[°]=,=< 
Let's assume it isn't.

I disagree since I belive the manual is already 
written as a tutorial. Let's surf the TOC (Table of 
Content):

+ It begins with the introduction, the basic .emacs   
  lines to use Org-Mode
+ then it describes the use of Org-Mode as outline
+ then tables 
+ then hyperlinks
+ TODO
+ tags
....

I think that a newbie is guided from the easy use to 
exploitation of the more advanced features of
Org-Mode:
properties, finer agenda views etc...

Moreover "The OrgMode tutorial by David O'Toole"
on the  worg site is not enough? 

> Because yes, beginners might be frightened 
> by the size of 
> the manual, 
 
 (-:   Newbies may only be   /lazy/ and do not   :-)
 (-:   want to spend time in reading the manual   :-)

> by the simple act of asking something on
> this list, 
 
    (-:   So what? Let them grew up,       :-)
     :-)  become brave and ask questions!  :-)

I mean, I personally asked some _really_ silly 
questions here: e.g. I sought for help regarding a
bug,
 but the problem was that *I* wrote badly  the 
"#+LINK: " line and  Carsten replied very promptly 
and extremly kindly.

I think that everybody in this list is really gentle,
helpful,  constructive, handy, supportive.
 
> or by
> spending time looking for the right information on
> Org websites.

Perhaps we (not so newbie users) shall 
+ try to organise the various sorces of documentation
  EmacsWiki, orgmode.org, worg ...
  in a more clear way 
+ fill the page of the tutorials at the worg site

On the other hand if somebzg ;) will write a tutorial
as clear, readable and enlightning, like you did with 
column views [terrific!], I will suggest every 
newbie to read it.

Cheers,
Giovanni



      ___________________________________ 
Scopri il Blog di Yahoo! Mail: trucchi, novità,
consigli... e la tua opinione!
http://www.ymailblogit.com/blog/


      ___________________________________ 
Scopri il Blog di Yahoo! Mail: trucchi, novità, consigli... e la tua opinione!
http://www.ymailblogit.com/blog/

Re: tutorial:

[Bastien]

Giovanni Ridolfi <giovanni.ridolfi@yahoo.it> writes:

>> So I believe this would be a *huge* benefit for Org
>> to have its own tutorial.  
>
> Is it an april fool?  <[°]=,=< 
> Let's assume it isn't.

Well, the april fool would have sounded like: "Hey guys!  The new Org
exporter is finally out!  Download it here => XXX"

> Moreover "The OrgMode tutorial by David O'Toole"
> on the  worg site is not enough? 

It is good, but something more incremental could be done.  

> + fill the page of the tutorials at the worg site

Yes, go ahead :)

> On the other hand if somebzg ;) will write a tutorial
> as clear, readable and enlightning, like you did with 
> column views [terrific!], I will suggest every 
> newbie to read it.

If fact, I might start something on Worg at some point.  If people and
Carsten find this useful, this could go official at some point.

Best,

-- 
Bastien

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Uwe Jochum]

Hm,

Message from Apr 01 2008 (11:18):
> Hm, reading all the answers to this aprils fools gets me a bit worried.
> Nobody seems to see the joke and everybody seems to agree that org-mode
> is too bloated. 

sometimes the joke reveals a truth. Sometimes only the reflection of a
truth. Let's wait until next year and see if it's a truth or only its
reflection.

Uwe

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Clint Laskowski]

My thoughtful suggestion has become the brunt of an April Fool's Joke?
I have half a mind to report you all to the Productivity Police! Fine!
I'm going back to paper and pencil for to-do lists, and mail, too!
We'll see how you like that!

:-)

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
>
>  Dear all,
>
>  the recent discussion about Taskpaper in the thread started
>  by Clint Laskowski has made me realize how much we have lost
>  out way with Org-mode.  Org-mode was once a compact and
>  easy tool just like taskpaper.  In fact, looking at the
>  features of taskpaper, one might think that they had an older
>  version of Org-mode as model and goal of their development.
>
>  But in the meantime, mostly due to a mountain of demands
>  from this group, it has become so bloated with mostly
>  useless features, that all but the most geeky users are
>  totally confused by this.
>
>  Reading this thread has really cost me a lot of sleep, but
>  I have now come to the conclusion that we need to turn
>  the tide and downscope Org-mode significantly.  Luckily
>  I have recently put much effort into splitting org.el
>  into a number of separate files with separate features.
>  This allows us a very simple and straight-forward path
>  for this down-scoping effort.  I can simply try to remove
>  one of these separate files after the other and then see
>  how much complaining I will get for this.  In this way,
>  we can make this process community-based, but I will
>  need you to frequently update org-mode and to give me
>  feedback during the process.
>
>  Those of you who actively follow the git repository
>  might have noticed that this morning I have started
>  by removing org-table.el, the file containing the
>  table editor.  Unfortunately this also means that the
>  clocktable support no longer works, but I have always
>  considered this as a sickening feature anyway, which
>  tries to streamline our life, but in fact only leads to
>  more work, and to more time taken away from spending with
>  partners, kids and friends.
>
>  I hope that you can all agree with my conclusion.  If not,
>  than I am confident that with time you will realize
>  just how important today's decision was.
>
>  - Carsten
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>  Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>  Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>  http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>



-- 

-- Clint

Clint Laskowski, CISSP
clint.laskowski@gmail.com

Re: Org-mode and taskpaper

[Eddward DeVilla]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Clint Laskowski
<clint.laskowski@gmail.com> wrote:
> My thoughtful suggestion has become the brunt of an April Fool's Joke?
>  I have half a mind to report you all to the Productivity Police! Fine!
>  I'm going back to paper and pencil for to-do lists, and mail, too!
>  We'll see how you like that!

Given the coming changes to Org-mode, that sounds pretty good
actually.  Is table editing very difficult with that scheme?

Edd