Re: how to change the headline starter *

[Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org>]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:21:01 +0200, Philipp Haselwarter <philipp.haselwarter@gmx.de> wrote:
> No need to go all flaming because someone thinks the looks of the
> software matter. TBH I don't see what's wrong with that or in what way
> that's the opposite of efficiency.

What I considered "wrong" about it was the OP implying -twice- that a
frivolous feature request such as this could be marked as being a
full-caps "BUG" [1,2].

Considering all the time and effort Org-mode's selfless developers have
sacrificed to deliver this mindblowing piece of software to us, this
could easily be perceived as an insult in my opinion, regardless of
whether or not it was intentional.

I know that this doesn't justify the tone of my impulsive reply in any
way whatsoever, and I do apologize for disrupting the serene atmosphere
which characterizes this list, but... I sent it, and I stand behind it 100%.

Besides, how could someone who cares about how slick and shiny their
software looks *possibly* end up using Emacs?

> Abstracting the user interface from the logic is an important paradigm,
> especially for something like org-mode that you want to run on a wide
> range of devices – think 24" monitors vs 3" mobile devices. You don't
> want to have too much of the looks hardcoded.

Exactly! That is, believe it or not, the whole point.

What the OP is suggesting effectively nullifies the separation between
model and view in that it would allow changing Org-mode's outlining
markup at its very core, potentially leading to a wildgrowth of "custom"
markup formats which could hardly be called "plain text" anymore, not to
mention the avalanche of PEBCAK-related bug reports it may unleash.

> Now if you don't find that to be one of /your/ personal top priorities –
> fine, don't bother. But going all bashing because someone insists on his
> opinion that this is important? I don't see what you're trying to
> achieve here.

Pretty much since the very beginning, Org-mode has been described as:
  "Org is a mode for keeping notes, maintaining TODO lists, and doing
  project planning with a fast and effective plain-text system."

Seeing as how this description hasn't changed ever since, one can safely
assume that keeping the markup format sane (i.e. plain-text) and
consistent (i.e. semi-standardized, so as not to complicate joint
project planning) is a top priority for the entire Org-mode community.

As for my personal priorities: I didn't start using Emacs solely because
Org-mode *requires* me to, but because I care about getting my work done,
as efficiently as possible. Mac/Windows-influenced non-features (and
the code overhead they introduce) will undoubtedly interfere with that.

IOW, a lack of certain "features" is an essential feature in and of itself.

I guess what I'm trying to achieve is to keep Org-mode from slowly and
inconspicuously devolving into something featuring transparent blinking
3D unicorn overlays with cherries on top. That's a gross exaggeration of
course (one would hope), but I'm sure you catch my drift.

> 
> -- 
> Philipp Haselwarter
> 
> 


Peace

-- 
Pieter

[1] id:"1016444425.2577651310651584384.JavaMail.root@zimbra29-e5.priv.proxad.net"
[2] id:"1240511841.2591431310664738370.JavaMail.root@zimbra29-e5.priv.proxad.net"