Re: [org-babel] Does org-babel needs some simplification?

[Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu>]

Hello!

<snip>
> 
> Whenever I come back to org-babel, it takes me a huge amount of time to
> find myself back again in the syntax. Often I spend a day or two heavily
> reading the website and manual again to figure out how to make it working.
> 
> There are so many options. tangle files, results, scripting mode,
> sessions, noweb, lot, etc.
> 
> Just yesterday, I fighted again to make a simple python script running
> as desired to generate an automatic report. I did this dozen of times
> and even by using some old report as template I still struggle with it.
> Comparing old reports I noticed that I did it in many different ways.
> Tangeling all snipplets, using noweb syntax, with and without session
> support, etc.

<snip>

I have not used it for Python, but for R coding I've found it incredibly 
intuitive.  However, that might be because R has long supported literate 
programming through Sweave, complete with noweb syntax and code tangling.

I personally don't think it's too complex.  One thing that could help is a 
gentle introduction written by users of each language that babel supports.  I 
have started something like that with R already on my blog, see 
http://blogisticreflections.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/introduction-to-using-r-with-org-babel-part-1/ 


I think the best thing to do is to figure out a system that works for you, and 
document it (in org-mode of course!) so that there are notes the next time you 
come back to the file, or need to produce a new file.

Of course, the authors of babel might have plans to somehow simplify syntax, but 
I just wanted to point out that, like anything, with some repetition, you can 
commit the main ideas to memory and then consult the manual when needed.  I 
found that spending a couple hours running all the possible options in the 
manual with R while taking notes went a long way in helping me understand how it 
it all works.

Best Regards,
Erik