There is always a lot of org-mode promotion on here when the topic is interactive notebooks. And I get it, people love it and it solved many of the problems other systems have. But org-mode users need to understand that the one thing holding org-mode back is simply emacs. I know you probably all love it, but everyone else is not interested in breaking of their fingers by learning obscure key command chains just to use org-mode. Sorry, but that is just the reality.
If someone can implement the majority of org-mode in a better editor, there might be more users interested. But as it stands, it's just to much of a hassle.
I expect one of the main reasons someone could evangelise Emacs for is the fact that defaults don't mean much when it's all configurable. So if you don't like the keys, just bind them to whatever you like. That's like the fundamental ethos of everything in Emacs. Also, CUA-mode exists.
If org-mode wasn't backed by Emacs, it would merely be a markdown substitute hence much less useful. There are many org-mode clones for modern editors like neovim or VSCode, except all they offer is front-end features (highlighting, folding, node manipulation etc). There is simply no reason to use those over a decent markdown editor. So I think you have this backwards; Emacs isn't holding back org-mode, rather much of advanced org-mode features are made possible and distinguished by the fact that it builds on Emacs.
> I expect one of the main reasons someone could evangelise Emacs for is the fact that defaults don't mean much when it's all configurable. So if you don't like the keys, just bind them to whatever you like.
Configurability is a strength of a system, but it is no an answer to a difficult learning curve. A user must first understand the system in order to configure it appropriately.
Even at the level of key bindings, the user needs to understand the relative frequency and importance of an operation to choose an appropriate key combination. Universal reconfiguration may even make the system less learnable, if documentation and tutorials can't assume a reasonable default configuration.
In my opinion, configuration is great as one of the final steps of a user's journey, taking the system from something that works to something that sings. It's just the wrong level to sell benefits to beginners.
> Even at the level of key bindings, the user needs to understand the relative frequency and importance of an operation to choose an appropriate key combination. Universal reconfiguration may even make the system less learnable, if documentation and tutorials can't assume a reasonable default configuration.
i have a feeling that people who write these things have never really tried emacs beyond opening it and getting annoyed that ctrl-c/v/x don't work (at first) the way they are used to
emacs is not key-binding-based, it is command based. if you change a key binding its not like you can wreck anything as you can always call the command prompt by M-x and search for the command that you wanted some key binding to perform. key-bindings are just shortcuts to commands so i think its best to listen to your fingers and form muscle memory and then assign them
what are your most basic commands? copy, paste, select, start/end of line/function/class/paragraph/etc, move by word/sentence/etc, save, exit? these are not that many to set to whatever key combinations you want. i wish my browser had at least this level of extensibility
> I know you probably all love it, but everyone else is not interested in breaking of their fingers by learning obscure key command chains just to use org-mode. Sorry, but that is just the reality
i'm sorry to burst your strong held convictions but you can choose any of the following
a) use any key-bindings you like including emacs, vim, cua, or combination of
b) use org-mode without any knowledge of more advanced emacs commands (except basic knowledge of using an editor)
c) drink some milk (gotta have strong bones) and learn how to use the emacs system including emacs lisp and have one of the most advanced computing environments in existence at your service
About 1000 times per day, someone says emacs is too big an ask for org-mode, and someone replies, it's configurable to feel like whatever you're used to.
The latter needs to accept that most users, particularly scientists, reject out-of-hand anything requiring configuration or compilation no matter how trivial.
But it's all moot since org-mode is largely promoted by non-scientists (computer science is not a science), and should a wysiwig-inclined scientist ever get past the emacs obstacle, he'll balk at the awkward BEGIN_SRC incantations.
Congratulations for being special, 99% of academia uses Matlab, a simple GUI text-editor or something like Anaconda.
Emacs is such a fundamentally different paradigm from all other IT tools/editors that it just doesn't make sense to recommend a specialized tool with a steep learning curve and non-transferable skills when it's not ubiquitous and more standard alternatives exist without it which do OK. It doesn't matter that emacs was historically the first and everyone else decided to go in different directions, that's just the reality of today.
much like saying that linux has a steep learning curve
Most people do say that. What programmers cannot grasp is progress is about giving people what they want, not what is rationally best. Most scientists want to knock out a paper or presentation, and make it home on time for dinner.
> I know you probably all love it, but everyone else is not interested in breaking of their fingers by learning obscure key command chains just to use org-mode. Sorry, but that is just the reality. If someone can implement the majority of org-mode in a better editor, there might be more users interested.
> If someone can implement the majority of org-mode in a better editor,
If that were easy, then that other editor would be an emacs. There's a reason emacs gets all these modes, and its because writing extensions is easy. If I want to extend something like VScode or Pycharm, or whatever, it is a massive undertaking.
> But org-mode users need to understand that the one thing holding org-mode back is simply emacs. I know you probably all love it, but everyone else is not interested in breaking of their fingers by learning obscure key command chains just to use org-mode.
We get it - what makes you think we don't. We are merely pointing out a superior solution.
Like back in 2004 I would tell people how many of their problems would be resolved if they switched to Linux. Fast forward two decades later, the statement is still true, and most people still don't use Linux. But it wasn't a problematic thing to point it out to them - be it in 2004 or now.
(It's a lot easier to use Emacs than switch to Linux.)
