Not "Literate Editor with Outlines", so what is Leo?

[Ville M. Vainio]

Currently, the description for Leo in debian package is "Literate
Editor with Outlines". Assuming that this is not the desired marketing
pitch anymore,
what should the short description be?

for reference, here's the current complete description. I removed the
Tk part to be in line with the general direction to de-emphasize it in
documentation:

Description: Literate Editor with Outlines
Leo is a tree-structured outliner with direct support for literate
programming. Apart from programming, Leo provides a rich interface for
tasks involving visual manipulation of hierarchical data (project
management, mind mapping, concept experimentation).
The whole DAG object model is exposed to the user through complete (Python
based) scripting API. Leo has a scriptable Qt-based user interface.

--
Ville M. Vainio @@ Forum Nokia

[Edward K. Ream]

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Ville M. Vainio <viva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Currently, the description for Leo in debian package is "Literate
> Editor with Outlines". Assuming that this is not the desired marketing
> pitch anymore,
> what should the short description be?

Legendary Editor with Outlines :-)

I suppose something bland like, "an outlining editor/ide" would be ok.
Almost anything but LP.

Edward

[zpcspm]

Why not keeping the package description in sync with what is displayed
on leo's homepage?

"An outline-oriented browser and project manager" looks good to me.

[Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas]

Hi,

El 06/11/10 21:37, zpcspm escribi�:

> Why not keeping the package description in sync with what is displayed
> on leo's homepage?
>
> "An outline-oriented browser and project manager" looks good to me.
>

Why the literate part was dumped? I know the differences between Knuth's
perspective and what Leo does and how, but if there was a more detailed
explanation would be nice, especially for people who liked that part of
the name and saw Leo as may be the best way to make part of the Knuth's
vision true and of course make contributions and divergences also.

Cheers,

Offray

[Edward K. Ream]

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas
<offra...@javeriana.edu.co> wrote:

> Why the literate part was dumped?

Because LP has a bad reputation. Many people would be turned off by the term.

That reputation may be undeserved, but I don't want to advertise Leo
as *only* an LP editor.

Edward

[Ville M. Vainio]

It's missing the "Editor" part, which is pretty fundamental part of
Leo. I also think "browser" is a heavily overloaded word these days.

[Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas]

Hi

El 07/11/10 08:23, Edward K. Ream escribi�:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna C�rdenas

> <offra...@javeriana.edu.co> wrote:
>
>> Why the literate part was dumped?
> Because LP has a bad reputation. Many people would be turned off by the term.
>
> That reputation may be undeserved, but I don't want to advertise Leo
> as *only* an LP editor.
>
> Edward
>

I think that Literate Programming and Outlining were both important
inspirations for Leo and would be nice to acknowledge that in the
description in some way. May be:

Leo: A literate and outline inspired project manager, editor and IDE.

Is, of course, a draft. May be is Literate + Programming what has bad
reputation but "computing as literature" goes back to Theodor H. Nelson
and Literary Machines and is an idea with important practical
consequences (like the Web) and evocations still to be fulfilled.

Cheers,

Offray

[Terry Brown]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:42:45 -0500
"Edward K. Ream" <edre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Legendary Editor with Outlines :-)

LEO: LEO Editor with Outlines :-)

Cheers -Terry

[Edward K. Ream]

Following in the foosteps of GNU, Yacc, Yaml, etc. and many others. Cute.

Leonine Editor with Outlines.

I think I'll actual make this change. Adds a bit of humor.

Edward

[Edward K. Ream]

On Nov 15, 3:19 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <edream...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Leonine Editor with Outlines.
>
> I think I'll actual make this change.  Adds a bit of humor.

Changed on the wikipedia page and Leo's home page.

Edward

[Craig Johnson]

On Sunday, 7 November 2010 15:23:11 UTC+2, Edward K. Ream wrote:

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas
<offra...@javeriana.edu.co> wrote:

> Why the literate part was dumped?

>Because LP has a bad reputation. Many people would be turned off by the term.

>That reputation may be undeserved, but I don't want to advertise Leo
>as *only* an LP editor.

>Edward

It seems that more than the literate name was dumped. Support for code parts and Doc parts is also disappearing from the code and documentation.

 

I quite like the concept of embedding the documentation inside the code, however, it seems that I can’t do that with Leo anymore.  I’m an advocate of write-what-you-code then code-what-you-wrote.  Rather than code-and-hope-that-its-right.

 

Leo is turning into just another outlining editor, with scripting.  It has lost what drew me to it in the first-place.

 

Quite sad really.

 

 Craig

[Edward K. Ream]

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Craig Johnson <cr...@hivemind.net> wrote:

It seems that more that the literate name was dumped. 

 

Support for code parts and Doc parts is also disappearing from Leo and it's documentation among other bits of LP that have already gone.

True, the documentation is gone, on purpose.  But the code and functionality remains, now and for the foreseeable future.

The reason for removing the LP-related docs was to simplify the documentation for newbies.  I suppose we could put some more info in an appendix, but really, nobody is ever going to read it :-)

Another reason for removing those particular features, @root, etc., is that I never use them and they are, imo, bad style.  Remember that Knuth invented CWEB ca. 1980, before there were such things as classes!  (Or Python).  In the modern world, the need for "augmented sections" does not exist.  Even more so with Leo and it's clones.

 

I quite like the concept of embedding the documentation inside the code, however, it seems that I can’t do that with Leo anymore.

You can still use @...@c anywhere.

There have also been discussions about better support for intertwining code and data in the rst3 command.  I sympathize with the desire, but the rst3 command is already way too complicated...

 

I’m an advocate of write-what-you-code then code-what-you-wrote. Rather than code-and-hope-that-its-right.

This is a topic for debate.  Imo, comments have their place, but keeping code and lengthy comments in synch never "just happens".
 

Leo is turning into just another outlining editor, with scripting. It has lost what drew me to it in the first-place.

I have never, ever, regretted the way that Leo has redefined LP.  The chapter http://leoeditor.com/design.html used to be called, "How Leo improves LP". I've changed the name because I really think LP is pretty much irrelevant.  Here is a section from Leo's history:

QQQ
Late in 1997 I wrote a Print command to typeset an outline. Printing (Weaving)
is supposedly a key feature of literate programming. Imagine my surprise when I
realized that such a "beautiful" program listing was almost unintelligible; all
the structure inherent in the outline was lost! I saw clearly that typesetting,
no matter how well done, is no substitute for explicit structure.

QQQ

So from the very beginning, one major part of LP has been left out of Leo.

Later, I realized that sections and section references are usually bad style, except when using languages such as html that have no classes and methods!  Except for legacy code, Leo's code uses only << imports >> and similar sections, that would be difficult to simulate with Python defs.

In short, you can still say << x >> += y if you want to (the leoTangle module will not be deleted), but I wouldn't recommend it.

Edward

[Terry Brown]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 09:47:52 -0500

"Edward K. Ream" <edre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Later, I realized that sections and section references are usually bad
> style, except when using languages such as html that have no classes and
> methods!

HTML-5 fixes HTML's previously broken section model
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#the-section-element
So really H1 is the heading for each section, at whatever level of
nesting, and H2 is for sub-titles.

Cheers -Terry

[Edward K. Ream]

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Terry Brown <terry_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

> Later, I realized that sections and section references are usually bad
> style, except when using languages such as html that have no classes and
> methods!

HTML-5 fixes HTML's previously broken section model
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#the-section-element
So really H1 is the heading for each section, at whatever level of
nesting, and H2 is for sub-titles.

I think we are talking about two different things.  I was referring to *Leo* sections, like  << imports >>.  This has nothing to do with html.

EKR

[gaen...@gmail.com]

PLEASE my mind is blowing while trying to run this

[Edward K. Ream]

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:06 PM, <gaen...@gmail.com> wrote:

PLEASE my mind is blowing while trying to run this

​What, exactly, is your question?

Edward