The day org-mode will reach the masses is when the tutorials about it do not even mention the word emacs. Until then, it will inevitably be seen as a thing useful only for emacs users.
What Markdown has going for it is a much wider acceptance as a simple, straightforward way to work with text. Especially on modern devices, users with little or no coding background are successfully being lured into (superior!) plaintext workflows by apps with a great UI, and appear to take to it. iA Writer [A] and Bear [B] are two prominent examples of such apps, and I can't see why they would be any worse (or less popular) apps had they instead opted for org-mode behind the scenes.
This is what org-mode needs to gain widespread adoption, and I'm hoping we're on our way there.
[0] https://github.com/DanielDe/org-web [1] https://beorgapp.com/ [2] http://www.orgzly.com/ [A] https://ia.net/writer [B] https://bear.app/
I have been working on a Python way to import/export Orgmode files to/from an SQLite database that you can view and query in a native GUI (using Toga[0]). I was writing an Org-mode importing package for Python (to gain access to my Orgzly files and learn Python) until I found Orgnode[1]. I have the GUI table working, but I need to connect Orgnode to it and build an exporting system. You can follow this project at [2].
[0]: https://toga.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ [1]: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~charles57/GTD/orgnode.html [2]: https://gitlab.com/bthall/orcbench
Without Emacs, org-mode is just weird markdown.
The way it can quickly link between different types of unrelated content just doesn't make sense outside Emacs.
So, are you saying that the title of the article is bogus? Or that emacs is the only reasonable editor?
Given the options, I think that a decent argument can be made that emacs is the best editor, and that it's unreasonable to use anything that the best — so yeah, one might argue that emacs is the only reasonable editor.
I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but I wouldn't instinctively disagree.
I don't think most Emacs users could match a good VIM user in text editing speed, but then Emacs can do many other tasks that are hard to replicate in VIM, while being a more than good enough editor.
It is not so much which editor is better, rather what are the user's expectations.
To me this is obvious and has been probably been said a 1000 times before, but sometimes when reading threads about text editors, you would not think so.
Emacs takes an everything and the kitchen sink approach and org-mode embraces that.
That is the entire point. If I can only use it inside emacs then I will only use it inside emacs.
It's created by emacs users, for emacs users, it should absolutely mention that word everywhere and stress its origins, it's already widely adopted and who really cares if somebody who is so superficial that he rejects a superior solution because it originated in a text editor he doesn't like doesn't use it?
Indeed, and most of them don't nowadays!
> It's created by emacs users, for emacs users, it should absolutely mention that word everywhere and stress its origins
Of course, when you are explaining the history of org-mode you can mention it. Or when you are explaining how to org-mode with emacs. But to promote org-mode as a generic markup language (which I think is a very good idea), any mention of emacs, even indirect, should be best omitted.
> who really cares if somebody who is so superficial that he rejects a superior solution because it originated in a text editor he doesn't like doesn't use it?
I love emacs and I like to use it, no idea who are you taking about. Or was it sarcasm?