From: "Sébastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgwmuf-geNee64TY+gS+FvcfC7Uqw@public.gmane.org>
To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org
Subject: [babel] Org-babel vs NoWeb (and the like)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:13:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878wdjc7qa.fsf@mundaneum.com> (raw)
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
next reply other threads:[~2009-12-04 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-04 11:13 Sébastien Vauban [this message]
2010-01-06 15:37 ` [babel] Org-babel vs NoWeb (and the like) Eric Schulte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878wdjc7qa.fsf@mundaneum.com \
--to=wxhgmqzgwmuf-genee64ty+gs+fvcfc7uqw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).