Re: best practices query: non-emacs packages based on tangled source

[Greg Minshall]

Tom,

thanks very much for your very detailed analysis and explanation of the
issues you've had.  it's taken me this long to read through it
carefully.

the issues with python source blocks [C-c C-c] versus [C-c C-v C-t] are
in fact unfortunate, as it does make it hard to develop without lots of
tangling.  (i've run into that before with Python/org, but without
really understanding what was going on.)

i mostly write R code these days, and it's pretty happy either way.
however, i also write javascript code, and while i do it for front end
(so, don't execute it inside of org mode), i suspect it has the same
issues python does of conflating file names and modules, and might
benefit from some enhancement you suggest about treating source blocks
as "things" to be imported into the running babel session (maybe an
enhancement of <<noweb>>?).

for me, my ideal will be when the org "language" is documented as an
RFC, and people have produced stand alone tanglers, so i can release
code, and others, without emacs, without org mode, can edit the "source
of truth that is the org file", and run make to tangle and build
whatever random software package i'm releasing.

again, thank you for the reply.

cheers, Greg