Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#21

Post by tconfrey »

sfink wrote: post #17

Offtopic, but I use org mode for my notes files (both general and technical), and I've never really figured out how to use it effectively. My pre-org notes file was just a giant text file with entries delimited by manually-entered '--------------' lines. I stuck a topic in each entry for searchability and then the rest was freeform text. It worked pretty well. org mode gives me more power, but it's getting a little u…

Scaling your system is always going to be a problem, no matter what tools you use.

I hear you on isearching. To support multiple files you could look at ag.el for fast cross-file search (although not incremental like isearch).

Alternately you can use :tags: to add a different dimension of information by which things can be grouped. org-agenda can then be used to see items by tag (also since they are just text you can search them in a buffer). I use org-agenda in 'F'ollow mode whereby a second buffer shows the selected agenda item in its original context. It helps visualize where things are while navigating.

The new hotness, ala org-roam, is bidirectional linking with tiny files. That would probably be a pain to migrate to, and isn't really aligned with your free-form model. But it might be the way to scale over the long term.

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#22

Post by sfink »

tconfrey wrote: post #21
sfink wrote: post #17

Offtopic, but I use org mode for my notes files (both general and technical), and I've never really figured out how to use it effectively. My pre-org notes file was just a giant text file with entries delimited by manually-entered '--------------' lines. I stuck a topic in each entry for searchability and then the rest was freeform text. It worked pretty well. org mode gives me more power, but it's getting a little u…

Scaling your system is always going to be a problem, no matter what tools you use. I hear you on isearching. To support multiple files you could look at ag.el for fast cross-file search (although not incremental like isearch). Alternately you can use :tags: to add a different dimension of information by which things can be grouped. org-agenda can then be used to see items by tag (also since they are just text you can…

That sounds promising. You understood perfectly where I am and what I'm looking for, thanks.

I'll check out ag.el. The incremental search is not that big a deal, I'm usually searching for a keyword anyway.

I looked briefly at org-roam, and I agree with your assessment. It looks like it adds friction to the part that needs to be as smooth as possible for me: adding notes. I could probably dummy something up for searching by making a command that shells out to grep or whatever, but that feels like fighting against the data model.

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#23

Post by feanaro »

justinhj wrote: post #10
lazyier wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find being able to open + edit notes quickly helps my thought process more, I use org with roam in Doom Emacs. The org roam notes directory is backed by git. https://www.orgroam.com/ It allows for using a Zettelkasten style approach to note taking inside of Emacs. The basic idea is small quick notes that are cross referenced, indexed, and searchable. Doom Emacs is like Spacemacs were access to commands are activa…

I’m a long time emacs and org-mode user but I switched to neovim for 90% of my development work. I still use emacs for org-mode and I doubt I would ever use org-mode in neovim because it relies on being implemented in the entire emacs system and the emacs lisp language . Nothing short of embedding emacs on neovim would make it tenable. I have the same problem in the other direction, viper is not a substitute for neov…

> I doubt I would ever use org-mode in neovim because it relies on being implemented in the entire emacs system and the emacs lisp language . Nothing short of embedding emacs on neovim would make it tenable.

Uh-oh, this does not make a good commercial for org-mode. Is it really that tightly bound to emacs that it fundamentally cannot be used as a general-purpose editor-agnostic tool?

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#24

Post by sfink »

drunkpotato wrote: post #20
sfink wrote: post #17

Offtopic, but I use org mode for my notes files (both general and technical), and I've never really figured out how to use it effectively. My pre-org notes file was just a giant text file with entries delimited by manually-entered '--------------' lines. I stuck a topic in each entry for searchability and then the rest was freeform text. It worked pretty well. org mode gives me more power, but it's getting a little u…

I have a daily.org file I use to capture meeting notes and quick notes into. org-mode automatically keeps it organized as a datetree. I set all my other org files to archive into a subheader of the day it's archived (or done, for todos). So far I like it, but I've only been doing it for a few months. We'll see when it gets to years. One nice thing is it's easy to see at a glance roughly what I did in a given week or…

I had a separate 'daily.txt' file for this sort of thing, and it's desperately in need of a replacement. Your setup sounds pretty good to me. It seems like org mode may be a better match for the daily stuff than it is for my notes file. I especially like the idea of archiving into a subheader of the right day.

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#25

Post by justinhj »

omaranto wrote: post #16
justinhj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a long time emacs and org-mode user but I switched to neovim for 90% of my development work. I still use emacs for org-mode and I doubt I would ever use org-mode in neovim because it relies on being implemented in the entire emacs system and the emacs lisp language . Nothing short of embedding emacs on neovim would make it tenable. I have the same problem in the other direction, viper is not a substitute for neov…

> I have the same problem in the other direction, viper is not a substitute for neovim. You should give Evil a try, people say it's much better than Viper. At the very least Evil emulates Vim, while Viper just emulates vi.

Sorry I think it was evil. As soon as I found one thing that didn’t work I was done

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#26

Post by justinhj »

feanaro wrote: post #23
justinhj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a long time emacs and org-mode user but I switched to neovim for 90% of my development work. I still use emacs for org-mode and I doubt I would ever use org-mode in neovim because it relies on being implemented in the entire emacs system and the emacs lisp language . Nothing short of embedding emacs on neovim would make it tenable. I have the same problem in the other direction, viper is not a substitute for neov…

> I doubt I would ever use org-mode in neovim because it relies on being implemented in the entire emacs system and the emacs lisp language . Nothing short of embedding emacs on neovim would make it tenable. Uh-oh, this does not make a good commercial for org-mode. Is it really that tightly bound to emacs that it fundamentally cannot be used as a general-purpose editor-agnostic tool?

It would be more fair to say you can’t use it to it’s full potential outside of it’s host since its most useful features are implemented in emacs

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#27

Post by rgoulter »

feanaro wrote: post #23
justinhj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a long time emacs and org-mode user but I switched to neovim for 90% of my development work. I still use emacs for org-mode and I doubt I would ever use org-mode in neovim because it relies on being implemented in the entire emacs system and the emacs lisp language . Nothing short of embedding emacs on neovim would make it tenable. I have the same problem in the other direction, viper is not a substitute for neov…

> I doubt I would ever use org-mode in neovim because it relies on being implemented in the entire emacs system and the emacs lisp language . Nothing short of embedding emacs on neovim would make it tenable. Uh-oh, this does not make a good commercial for org-mode. Is it really that tightly bound to emacs that it fundamentally cannot be used as a general-purpose editor-agnostic tool?

Org mode has a long tail of features. -- So org mode has a similar problem to how vi-emulation in other programs will often miss out on some niche behaviour.

Using org mode as an outliner is likely to be easy in a variety of tools.

A major part of org mode is task management, integrated with an agenda view. The full set of editor interactions would be harder to implement in other editors.

e.g. One feature org mode has is "org babel", which allows running snippets of code, and gluing these together as a way of doing literate programming.

Or e.g. the tables in org mode support spreadsheet calculations.

-- I'd say more that people find many different uses for org mode. That somewhat speaks in favour of org mode as a tool.

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#28

Post by bananamerica »

ossusermivami wrote: post #12
bananamerica wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having something like that for NeoVim would be extremely nice. With new versions of Emacs having Wayland and Native Compilation it has improved performance significantly, but I don't think it will ever approach to just how fast NeoVim can be. Always good to remind that emacsclient makes starting an Emacs frame/window instantaneous.

As someone who is fluent (but rather more emacs) in both I got to say neovim is much faster to use and not just to start. Emacs does a lot more tho so I don't think it's a fair comparaison.... Still enjoying switching between both,

I use both, I don't find opening nvim faster than creating a new Emacs frame, certainly not faster than opening an Emacs frame in the command line.

Noticing that I'm mentioning creating a frame, not starting Emacs from scratch.

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#29

Post by justinhj »

justinhj wrote: post #26
feanaro wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt I would ever use org-mode in neovim because it relies on being implemented in the entire emacs system and the emacs lisp language . Nothing short of embedding emacs on neovim would make it tenable. Uh-oh, this does not make a good commercial for org-mode. Is it really that tightly bound to emacs that it fundamentally cannot be used as a general-purpose editor-agnostic tool?

It would be more fair to say you can’t use it to it’s full potential outside of it’s host since its most useful features are implemented in emacs

Here are two examples: I write a blog in org-mode and publish it to html. This is a built in feature of org mode but to configure it I have some emacs lisp code that handles the configuration. Because that code includes functions to generate output paths and so on it would not translate directly to Neovim. You'd have to rewrite the config in lua. Another example is calculated tables. You can manage tables in org-mode but you can also include emacs lisp code to calculate values based on other cells like a spreadsheet. Again these would need an emacs lisp interpreter and all of the context.

Re: Tree-sitter grammar for org-mode

#30

Post by omaranto »

justinhj wrote: post #25
omaranto wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have the same problem in the other direction, viper is not a substitute for neovim. You should give Evil a try, people say it's much better than Viper. At the very least Evil emulates Vim, while Viper just emulates vi.

Sorry I think it was evil. As soon as I found one thing that didn’t work I was done

Oh, that's a strict criterion! So not even Vim cuts it for you, it has to be neovim.
Post reply on HN