Greetings Ihor.
Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes: > 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. It might be possible, but certainly not as straightforward as working with Org. > 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. I have a very bad feeling about tying ob-asymptote.el with Asymptote, and I am trying to put my finger on this feeling. I think the problem is this one. ob-asymptote.el is coupled very loosely with Asymptote. Basically the only thing ob-asymptote.el requires from Asymptote is the ability to call the executable with some established parameters. Then again, ob-asymptote.el is coupled much more tightly with Org. It uses many more properties of Org (Babel) than of the Asymptote program. As a result, changes in Org are much more likely to affect ob-asymptote.el than changes in Asymptote. I think basic software development rules of thumb suggest that ob-asymptote.el should then be bundled with Org. All the best, Jarmo