Comment by medo-bear | Hacker News Reader

Comment by medo-bear | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

i strongly agree with what you are saying about Jupyter, however i strongly disagree about using netobooks in general (literal programming)

one of the key things that a good notebook system must allow you to do is to mix something like markup format + LaTeX + source code. writing math-heavy documentation and explanations is simply impractical and limited (readability suffers) if done in comments. jupyter however is severely limited as it is unreadable in its raw format and therefore does not play well with a version control system such as git

instead there is a solution that allows one to do everything jupyter does good with the additional benefit that it plays with version control really well - ie org-mode [1]. the only difference is that instead of using a browser to interact with it, you use emacs. the added benefit to this is that you can also use full-featured key bindings (emacs / vim) and even integrate a language server for auto-completion [2]

EDIT: moreover the list of supported languages in orgmode far exceeds that of jupyter [3] (or did the last time i made this comparison)

[1] https://orgmode.org/

[2] https://emacs-lsp.github.io/lsp-mode/manual-language-docs/ls...

[3] https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/languages/index.h...

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

> it's all configurable

also the ecosystem is huge and chances are that the configuration you are after is just a package-install away

> 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

sorry, but that is just the reality

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.

> But it's all moot since org-mode is largely promoted by non-scientists (computer science is not a science)

I think you're just suffering from selection bias, given that this is on HN.

Add me to the list of people who began using Emacs and Org mode during academia in a non-CS program.

Furthermore, go look at the Emacs conference - you'll find a significant number of speakers are not CS folks.

Yeah, me three. I started with Emacs because it could syntax highlight both R and LaTeX code for Sweave, and discovered org mode a few years later.

That being said, nobody's gonna learn Emacs for org-mode, unfortunately.

Is astronomy a science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgyRdnjRI4o

> But it's all moot since org-mode is largely promoted by non-scientists (computer science is not a science)

My academic training is in physics and mathematics. I was introduced to programming in my computational physics class. We used emacs as our editor

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.

> non-transferable skills

im curious which transferable skills you think Jupyter has

> Emacs is such a fundamentally different paradigm from all other IT tools/editors

its not. you use a mouse and click where you want your pointer to go. you use a keyboard to type

> steep learning curve

this is very much like saying that linux has a steep learning curve and you refuse to touch ubuntu because you are scared to blow up your computer

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.

> Most scientists want to ...

are you their union rep ?

> 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.

https://www.spacemacs.org/

I would even settle for a wiki with state-of-the-art outlining shortcuts and dates as a first-class dimension.

> 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.)

I think the solution is quarto https://github.com/quarto-dev/quarto-cli

> using netobooks in general (literal programming)

I guess you meant literate programming.

Literate programming is different from interleaving console inputs and outputs and random paragraphs in the same document.

Even if we expand the original idea to comprise that, literate programming is much more than that.

yeah it was supposed to say literate programming. anyway there is no doubt that org-mode (and jupyter) is an application of literate programming concepts. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming#Literate_...

But programming is more than writing notebooks.

How many python packages are written in literate programming style?

How many programs written as notebooks would be actually better if they were structured differently?

? i never said that its a one-size-fit-all solution. certainly you would not write a software package in a notebook. but you might write a tutorial, textbook, academic paper, homework, personal notes, etc.

My point was that a comment against notebooks being overused - where a different structure would make more sense - is not a necessarily a comment against literate programming.

The issues with notebooks - in general - are unrelated to literate programming. The notebook format is convenient to have some kind of “interactive” programming though, rather than “literate”.

> The notebook format is convenient to have some kind of “interactive” programming though, rather than “literate”

interactive programming is usually handled by the repl, for which you do not need a notebook

Have you considered that the notebook is an evolution of a repl, with improved visualization and feedback, for for analysis-heavy work? The problem starts when notebooks are used for development and production.

no because its not supperior to a proper lisp repl which you use to develop and interact with a live production system

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read%E2%80%93eval%E2%80%93pr...

Did you mind checking the availability of people with lisp skills vs most other languages used in research and DS? Or the availability of libraries and pace of evolution? If your solution is to teach lisp massively and have everyone just build their tooling, can you explain why it hasn't happened yet, despite lisp being around much longer than most languages in use in this field - and many attempts at what you're suggesting?

I have a sense that there are a quite lot more people with Lisp skills than there are jobs. It should be easy to find Lisp people. And I mean reasonably young people; not like pulling Cobol people out of retirement. Lisps continue to attract new people.

lisp is not only feature-cool its even retro-cool :)

i only said lisp repl is superior. far more superior actually. whether its popular is a different matter. there are people perfectly content with subpar technology and thats ok. however it doesnt hurt to know that there are alternatives

R is lispy enough for what they're suggesting.

hardly. look into whats available through slime with common lisp as an example of an advanced repl

I have done, thanks. R has most of what you need to replicate this, and is also a widely used DS language.

Of course you don’t! The notebooks are glorified repls and you can also have literate programming without interactive notebooks. What notebooks get you compared to alternatives is both things at the same time.

my point is similar but restricted to jupyter. i think that that org-mode can offer a much more advanced and complete literate programing environment than jupyter that's far beyond just markdown + repl

Agreed.

Note how babel is presented, by the way (last point in particular):

  Babel augments Org code blocks by providing:

  interactive and programmatic execution of code blocks;

  code blocks as functions that accept parameters, refer to other code blocks, and can be called remotely; and

  export to files for literate programming.

https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/intro.html

jupyter is also supported in org-mode https://github.com/nnicandro/emacs-jupyter

Reply on news.ycombinator.com