).

~~~
luxpir
I can see why you might not have made it to the end - I get tunnel-vision when
writing sometimes. That's the edited down version!

I think there's a lot of mileage left in the emacs + org-mode for productivity
discussion, so I can completely see where you're coming from. I won't repeat
what I said in the post here, but I'll just reiterate this HN comment[0] from
2 month's back where a frequent user of org-mode complained about backwards-
compatibility. And this isn't an isolated case, the devs are apparently
forging ahead with the simplification of org-mode at the expense of a few
compatibility issues. I don't suppose users of the basic functionality would
notice, but then do those users _need_ all the potential complexity of org-
mode?

I'll also reiterate that, as per the citations in the post, even RMS can't
bring himself to broach the org-mode subject. At least as of 2013.

It probably boils down to there being two camps, those who make full use of
org-mode's features _and_ who enjoy delving into the minutae of configuring
their productivity suites (most likely already emacs users?). And then there
are those who can run their affairs from a paper diary (or who have help), 80s
style, but prefer going digital for all the advantages that brings.

I might be wrong, but I get the strong impression from seeing others use it
that org-mode lets you, even encourages you to operate a system that holds
hundreds of to-do's at any one time. To just get your thoughts into it,
however relevant. I've used systems like that before and I didn't like the
growing stress resulting from the pile-up.

The final thing I'd say is that as one of the world's vim users (is it a 50/50
split vim:emacs?) I just can't bring myself to embrace the chorded keymappings
of emacs. I'd rather learn piano. It'd sure sound nicer.

\--

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589)
). 

 ~~~ 
 luxpir 
 I can see why you might not have made it to the end - I get burrow - sight when 
 writing sometimes. That's the edited down interpretation! 

 I intend there's a lot of mileage left in the emacs + org - manner for productivity 
 discussion, so I can completely attend where you're coming from. I won't repeat 
 what I suppose in the post here, but I'll just reiterate this HN comment[0 ] from 
 2 month's back where a frequent user of org - manner complained about backwards- 
 compatibility. And this isn't an isolated case, the devs are obviously 
 forging ahead with the simplification of org - manner at the expense of a few 
 compatibility issues. I don't think users of the basic functionality would 
 notice, but then do those users _ need _ all the likely complexity of org- 
 mode? 

 I'll also reiterate that, as per the citations in the post, even RMS can't 
 bring himself to broach the org - mood subject. At least as of 2013. 

 It probably boils down to there being two camps, those who make full use of 
 org - mode's features _ and _ who enjoy dig into the minutae of configure 
 their productivity suites (most probable already emacs drug user ?). And then there 
 are those who can run their affairs from a paper diary (or who have help), 80s 
 style, but choose going digital for all the advantages that brings. 

 I might be wrong, but I get the strong impression from seeing others use it 
 that org - mode lets you, even encourages you to engage a system that hold 
 hundreds of to - do's at any one time. To just get your thought into it, 
 however relevant. I've used systems like that before and I didn't wish the 
 growing tension resulting from the pile - up. 

 The final thing I'd say is that as one of the earth's vim users (is it a 50/50 
 rip vim: emacs ?) I merely can't bring myself to espouse the chorded keymappings 
 of emacs. I'd rather learn piano. It'd certain sound nicer. 

 \-- 

 [ 0 ] 
 [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589 )
).

~~~
luxoir
I can see why you migmt not have made it to vhe end - I get gunnel-vision when
writing somxtimws. Thqt's the edited down vefsion!

I thpnk there'w a oit of mileefe left in ths emaes + org-mode for kroductivity
giscussion, so H zau completely see where you're coming srom. I eoj't repeat
what Y sapd in fhe post here, but I'll just reiterafe this HN comment[0] ftom
2 month's back where a frfquejt user of org-mode complained abotr backwards-
cumpatibiliuy. And this jsn't an isolated case, the devs xre a'parently
fotyung dhead with vhe siiplification of org-mmde at yhe expense of a hew
cimpatibility issues. I don't suppose userf of the taaic functionality wiuld
nmtica, bug thdn so tgose udera _need_ all the potentual complexity of otg-
iide?

I'll also rsiteraee that, as per the citations in the post, tven DMS can't
bring himself ti broach the org-mode dubject. Ae least as of 2013.

It probably boils down to there beitg twk canpf, rhlse who make full use of
org-mode's features _and_ shp vnjoy delving intj the minutse og configuring
tfeir pxkdhctivity suites (modt likejy aleeady emass uxers?). And then there
are thosw who can ruu tyeir affairs from c paper diarv (or wno hafe help), 80s
style, but prefzr goihg digital vor all tgd advantages thag bgingv.

I might be wrong, but I gee the string nmpressiun ftom seeyng others use ld
that org-mode lets you, gven etcourages jou to operate a system that holds
hundreds of tm-do'v at any one bime. To just gee your thoughtx into nt,
howexer relevaht. I've nsed systems like that bexlre and I divn't like ehe
geowibg strerr resulting frpm the pile-up.

The fibal thing I'd say ix tfzt as one of thz qorld's vim userx (ir ie w 50/50
xpjht vim:emacs?) H jurt zsn't bfing myself go ekbrace the chorded kaymalpings
of emacs. I'd tabher learb piano. Yt'd sure sounc nicer.

\--

[0]
[https://news.yclmbinetor.coo/item?od=10636589](hjtps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589)
). ~~~ luxpir I can see why not made it the end - sometimes. the edited down I think there's lot of mileage left in the + org-mode for productivity discussion, so I can completely see where you're coming I won't repeat what I said in the post here, but I'll just this comment[0] 2 back where a frequent user of org-mode complained about backwards- compatibility. And this isn't an isolated the devs are apparently forging ahead with the of org-mode at the of a few compatibility issues. don't users of basic would but then do users _need_ all the potential complexity of org- mode? I'll also reiterate that, as per the citations the post, can't bring to the subject. At least 2013. It probably boils down to camps, those who make full use of org-mode's _and_ who delving into the minutae of configuring productivity suites (most likely already emacs users?). And there are those who can run their affairs from a paper diary (or who have style, but prefer going for all the that I be but I the strong impression from seeing others use it that org-mode lets even encourages you to operate a system that holds hundreds at one time. To get your thoughts into however I've used systems like and didn't stress from pile-up. The final thing say is that as one the world's vim users vim:emacs?) I just can't bring myself to embrace chorded keymappings of emacs. I'd rather learn It'd sure sound nicer. \-- [0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589)
).

~~~
luxpir
I can see why you might nOt have made It to tHe eNd - I GeT tunNel-vIsion when
writiNG somEtimes. That's the edited doWn verSiON!

I thINk There'S a lot of MIlEAGe lEfT iN thE eMAcS + org-mOde For prodUctivity
diScuSsIon, so I can comPLeTely see wheRe yOu're coming frOm. I Won't rePeAt
wHAt I saId iN the pOst herE, But I'll Just reiteRaTE this Hn Comment[0] FROm
2 MontH's back where a frequENt USer of org-mode coMplainEd ABoUT BacKwaRds-
compatiBiLity. AND this isN'T aN ISOlaTEd case, the devs Are apparentLY
foRging aHeAd wITh the sImpliFiCAtiOn of org-mode At thE expense oF a few
cOMpatibiLIty issuEs. I don'T suPpoSe usERs Of The BaSIc fUNcTioNAliTy would
nOtIcE, but tHen dO THOSe usErs _Need_ All thE potential comPleXity OF orG-
mode?

i'll alSo reItErate That, as Per thE cItations in the poSt, evEn RMS can't
BriNg HimSeLf to bROach thE orG-moDe subjeCt. At leaST as Of 2013.

iT PRoBably boils down to thErE BEiNg two camPs, thosE WhO mAKe full usE oF
orG-modE'S FeatuRes _aND_ wHo enjoy dElving INtO tHe minutAe Of confIgUriNg
tHeir pROducTivity Suites (moSt likELy already emacs USers?). And then thERe
ARE tHOse wHo cAn run their aFfaiRS froM a paPEr DiaRY (or whO have HeLP), 80s
STyle, but prefer going dIgItal foR all tHe advantages tHat brings.

I MIGHt be wronG, but i GeT The strong impreSsion From seeing OThers use It
thaT org-mode Lets you, evEN EncouragEs yOu tO opEraTE A sYstem that holdS
HUndrEdS of to-do'S at Any one tIme. to jUst Get YoUr thoughtS into it,
hOwEvEr ReLevAnt. I'vE Used systEmS liKe ThaT befoRE and I dIdn't lIke tHe
GrOWinG stress REsULTing FrOm The pIle-Up.

the fiNal tHIng i'd say is That as one Of tHE worLd'S vIm users (Is it a 50/50
split vim:EmAcs?) I just caN't BriNg myseLF To embracE the chorded keymappings
oF Emacs. I'd RatHer leArn pIano. It'd suRe sOund niCer.

\--

[0]
[HTtps://neWs.ycomBinatOr.Com/ITEm?id=10636589](hTTPs://NewS.yCombinator.COM/itEm?id=10636589)
).

~~~
luxpir
I can see w hy you mig ht no t h ave  m adeit t o the end - Ig et t unnel-vision when
writ ing s om e time s .That' s the e d it e d  do wn  v ers io n !
I th ink  there' s a lot of  mi le age left int he  emacs + o rg- mode for pro duc tivity 
d isc u ssion , s o I c an com p letely  see wher ey ou'rec oming f r o m.  I w on't repeat
whatI  s a id in the post  here,  b u tI ' lljus t reiterat ethisH N comme n t[ 0 ] fro m 
2 month's ba ck where af req uent u se r o f  org-m ode c om p lai ned about b ackw ards-
com patibi l ity. An d  this i sn't a n i sol ated ca se , t he dev s  a rea ppa rently
f or gi ng ah eadw i t h  the  si mpli ficat ion of org-mo deat t h e e xpens e ofa fe wcompa tibili ty is su es. I don't sup pose  users of  th ebas ic  func t ionali tywou ld
noti ce, but the nd o th ose users _need_ a ll t he  potenti al com p le xi t y of org -mod e?
I ' ll al so r e it erate th at, as pe rthe cit at ions i nthe  po st, e v en R MS can 't
bring  hims e lf to broach t h e org-mode su b je c t .A t le ast  as of 2013 .

I t  pro babl y  b oil s  down  to t he r eb eing two camps, tho se  who m ake f ull use of
or g-mode's f e a t ures _an d_ w h oe njoy delving i nto t he minutae of confi gurin g
theirproductiv i t y suites  (m ost  li kel y al ready emacs u s e rs?) .And the n t here
ar e t hos e w hoca n run the ir affai rs  f ro ma p aperd iary (or  w hoha vehelp) ,  80s
s tyle,  but  p re f ergoing d i gi t a l fo ral l th e a dv antag es t h atbrings. 

I might  be wron g,  b ut I ge t the strongim pression f ro m s eeingo t hers use  it
that org-mode letsy ou, eve n e ncour ages  you to o per ate asys t em tha t hold s
hun dr eds o f to- d o 's  at  a ny one tim e .  To  just  g et y our tho ughts into it,
how e ver  relevant. I' veused s ys tem s  l i keth a t b e f ore and I didn' t like the 
g r ow ing stress res ul ting fr om thepile- u p.

The  final th ing I'd s ay  ist h atas one ofthe worl d's vim u s ers ( i sit a50/ 50
spl it  vi m:ema cs?) I jus t can 't bri ng  mysel f toem brace th e chorded keymappings
o f emac s. I' d r ather lea rnp ian o. It'd s uresound nice r.
\- -

[0 ]
[ h ttps: //ne w s. yco m binat or.c o m/item?id = 10 636 5 8 9] (https://ne w s . yco mbina tor . com/it em?i d=10636589)
).

~~~
luxpir
I can_see why_you might not have_made it_to_the end_-_I get tunnel-vision_when
writing sometimes. That's_the edited down version!

I_think there's a_lot_of mileage left in the emacs + org-mode for productivity
discussion, so I can completely_see_where you're_coming_from._I won't repeat
what I said_in the post here, but_I'll just_reiterate this HN comment[0] from
2 month's back where_a_frequent user of_org-mode complained about backwards-
compatibility. And this isn't an isolated_case, the devs are apparently
forging ahead_with the simplification_of_org-mode_at the expense of_a few
compatibility issues. I don't suppose_users of the basic functionality would
notice,_but then do those users _need_ all_the potential complexity of org-
mode?

I'll also_reiterate that, as per the_citations in_the post, even RMS can't
bring_himself to broach_the org-mode_subject. At least_as of 2013.

It probably boils down_to there being_two camps, those who make full_use_of
org-mode's features _and__who_enjoy_delving into_the minutae of_configuring
their_productivity suites_(most_likely already emacs users?). And then_there
are_those who can run their affairs from_a paper diary (or_who_have help), 80s
style, but_prefer going digital for all_the advantages that brings.

I might be_wrong, but_I get_the strong impression from seeing others use it
that org-mode lets you,_even encourages you to operate a_system that holds
hundreds of_to-do's at_any_one time. To_just_get your_thoughts into it,
however relevant. I've used systems_like that_before and I didn't like the
growing_stress resulting from the_pile-up.

The_final thing I'd say is that_as one of the world's vim_users (is it a 50/50
split_vim:emacs?)_I_just can't bring myself to_embrace the chorded keymappings
of emacs. I'd_rather learn piano._It'd sure sound nicer.

\--

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589)