Clarify wording of FAQ entries
This commit is contained in:
parent
9888c7087f
commit
d56913b055
13
README.org
13
README.org
|
@ -1761,6 +1761,11 @@ core Org facilities. Whatever the case, an alternative was in order.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The existence of PACKAGE is never a good reason for me not to conduct my
|
The existence of PACKAGE is never a good reason for me not to conduct my
|
||||||
own experiments for recreational, educational, or practical purposes.
|
own experiments for recreational, educational, or practical purposes.
|
||||||
|
When the question arises of "why not contribute to PACKAGE instead?" the
|
||||||
|
answer is that without me experimenting in the first place, I would lack
|
||||||
|
the skills for such a task. Furthermore, contributing to another
|
||||||
|
package does not guarantee I get what I want in terms of workflow.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Whether you should use Denote or not is another matter altogether:
|
Whether you should use Denote or not is another matter altogether:
|
||||||
choose whatever you want.
|
choose whatever you want.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@ -1774,7 +1779,9 @@ right tool for every job. When I write notes, I want to focus on
|
||||||
writing. Nothing more. I thus have no need for stuff like org-babel,
|
writing. Nothing more. I thus have no need for stuff like org-babel,
|
||||||
scheduling to-do items, clocking time, and so on. The more "mental
|
scheduling to-do items, clocking time, and so on. The more "mental
|
||||||
dependencies" you add to your workflow, the heavier the burden you carry
|
dependencies" you add to your workflow, the heavier the burden you carry
|
||||||
and the less focused you are on the task at hand.
|
and the less focused you are on the task at hand: there is always that
|
||||||
|
temptation to tweak the markup, tinker with some syntactic construct,
|
||||||
|
obsess about what ought to be irrelevant to writing as such.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In technical terms, I also am not fond of Org's code base (I understand
|
In technical terms, I also am not fond of Org's code base (I understand
|
||||||
why it is the way it is---just commenting on the fact). Ever tried to
|
why it is the way it is---just commenting on the fact). Ever tried to
|
||||||
|
@ -1782,10 +1789,10 @@ read it? You will routinely find functions that are tens-to-hundreds of
|
||||||
lines long and have all sorts of special casing. As I am not a
|
lines long and have all sorts of special casing. As I am not a
|
||||||
programmer and only learnt to write Elisp through trial and error, I
|
programmer and only learnt to write Elisp through trial and error, I
|
||||||
have no confidence in my ability to make Org do what I want at that
|
have no confidence in my ability to make Org do what I want at that
|
||||||
level.
|
level, hence =denote= instead of =org-denote= or something.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Perhaps the master programmer is one who can deal with complexity and
|
Perhaps the master programmer is one who can deal with complexity and
|
||||||
keep adding to it. I am of the opposite view as language---code
|
keep adding to it. I am of the opposite view, as language---code
|
||||||
included---is at its communicative best when it is clear and accessible.
|
included---is at its communicative best when it is clear and accessible.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Make no mistake: I use Org for the agenda and also to write technical
|
Make no mistake: I use Org for the agenda and also to write technical
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue