Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hu...@iki.fi> writes: >> Then, would it make more sense to include ob-asymptote.el into the >> asymptote distribution? > > I do not think this is a good idea: > > - I am not involved in the development of asymptote, so this solution > would put maintenance of ob-asymptote.el beyond my reach.
AFAIK, it is developed publicly. Anyone can open a pull request or post on their forum. > - I have no idea whether developers of Asymptote have any interest in > Org. They are at least interested in Emacs. So, they might as well be interested in Org (which is a part of Emacs). Can ask. The advantage of maintaining ob-asymptote.el in the main asymptote repo is that people who are intimately familiar with the asymptote features can directly contribute and enhance the Org integration. Moreover, distributing together with the asymptote means no headache with back-compatibility issues. Maintaining on Org side will have an advantage of using the latest additions to Org babel features. I feel like it is more important to make use of the asymptote features if its devs are going to be interested. Of course, IMHO. > - Comparing to another language: what is the situation e.g. with > Haskell? We have ob-haskell.el (thanks to Lawrence Bottorff). In my > distro at least, I have Haskell mode installed separately. Should we > then move ob-haskell.el into the package supplying Haskell mode? It would make sense. The same arguments apply. > - Somehow I also think that the proposed solution would be close to the > idea of including ob-C.el into a C compiler distribution. C compiler distribution does not ship with C major mode. So, it is different. Best, Ihor
