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

["Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com>]

Hi Torsten,

Thanks for bringing this up.  I think you're right that Org-babel does
need to expose some simple points of entry.

However in reviewing the points of complexity,

- tangling
- noweb references
- the profusion of header arguments
- the library of babel

my immersed and subjective perspective is that all of these moving parts
do a pretty good job of being orthogonal, i.e. they don't overlap or
duplicate functionality and each additional piece adds new functionality
which would be otherwise impossible.

So assuming that all of these facets of Org-babel are essential (please
let me know if anyone thinks that there are chunks which could be
re-factored out), then the issue becomes making it straightforward to do
most *common* tasks w/o having to dive into much of the complexity.
This probably means good default values for all configurable parameters,
and better documentation.

We have some example usage documents up on worg [1], however those focus
on showing off all of the bells and whistles.  I like the idea of
compiling some simple language-specific demos which walk through the
basic usage of Org-babel with pointers-to, but no inclusions-of the more
complex features.

Hopefully this is something we can improve in the near future.

Thanks -- Eric

Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> writes:

> Dear All,
>
> as a (quite, but happy) org-bable user of the first hour I followed up
> the development process actively.
> Nevertheless, some weeks or months pass where I had no need for
> org-babel (yes, really strange I know).
>
> 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.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I really love org-babel and I think it is really
> great. I just wonder wether it has become too complex and too difficult
> to use to attract most of the org-mode people. Esp. considering people
> who use it not on a regular basis.
>
> Best regards
>
> Torsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Footnotes: 
[1]  http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/uses.php