3 ms·

Using `cat` is fine but having a format-aware cli dumper would be better. And I never edit org files outside an editor that knows how to handle org files. I th

by neolog 5y ago

Using `cat` is fine but having a format-aware cli dumper would be better. And I never edit org files outside an editor that knows how to handle org files. I think Clojure's EDN format as used in Roam and Athens does a better job since it avoids the parsing problem while still being easy to fix if the file gets corrupted (though how much of a risk is that these days).

danShumway 5y ago
> I never edit org files outside an editor that knows how to handle org files. I guess I'll also add, I use Emacs in environments where not everyone else uses Emacs, and I like to make TODO lists, write up docs. Yeah, I can export to HTML, but it's a nice bonus to Org that I don't really have to -- I can write all of my docs and share them with people as plain Org files or stick them on a random flash-drive, and I know they'll still be readable. Could just be my own disorganization/laziness :shrug: > having a format-aware cli dumper would be better My opinions have lately been jumping around a lot on this. In theory, having a good machine-readable format that you can dump out from a command line is enough, because you can turn that format into plain text if it's ever important to do so. So I sort of see where you're coming from. In practice, I still feel like the lack of friction working with pure text adds something? I do occasionally boot up Vim or stick files on a flash drive and edit them on someone else's laptop when I'm away from Emacs. But I don't know. Regardless, I do want a format-aware cli dumper, so you're absolutely correct on that point :)
- neolog 5y ago
  The other thing I meant to say, it's too easy to accidentally mess up an org file while editing it. Manual errors are the most common source of the corruption you mentioned, IME. That doesn't happen with structured editors like paredit.el or Word or Roam.
  - e3bc54b2 5y ago
    Word is the worst for accidental manual edits screwing the whole document. I cannot count the number of tines I've watched my classmates manually adjusting dozens of graphs and images in as many pages one by one because they shifted something in inititial pages.

by neolog 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago

> I never edit org files outside an editor that knows how to handle org files. I guess I'll also add, I use Emacs in environments where not everyone else uses Emacs, and I like to make TODO lists, write up docs. Yeah, I can export to HTML, but it's a nice bonus to Org that I don't really have to -- I can write all of my docs and share them with people as plain Org files or stick them on a random flash-drive, and I know they'll still be readable. Could just be my own disorganization/laziness :shrug: > having a format-aware cli dumper would be better My opinions have lately been jumping around a lot on this. In theory, having a good machine-readable format that you can dump out from a command line is enough, because you can turn that format into plain text if it's ever important to do so. So I sort of see where you're coming from. In practice, I still feel like the lack of friction working with pure text adds something? I do occasionally boot up Vim or stick files on a flash drive and edit them on someone else's laptop when I'm away from Emacs. But I don't know. Regardless, I do want a format-aware cli dumper, so you're absolutely correct on that point :)

neolog 5y ago
The other thing I meant to say, it's too easy to accidentally mess up an org file while editing it. Manual errors are the most common source of the corruption you mentioned, IME. That doesn't happen with structured editors like paredit.el or Word or Roam.
- e3bc54b2 5y ago
  Word is the worst for accidental manual edits screwing the whole document. I cannot count the number of tines I've watched my classmates manually adjusting dozens of graphs and images in as many pages one by one because they shifted something in inititial pages.