org-parser VS vimwiki

Let me start by saying I like the goal and would like to see org mode accessible to everyone, but I do have some thoughts/reservations.

> For the little code I do write, I find having AI assistance (via CoPilot or Cody) to be tremendously helpful. So helpful, in fact, that I now tend to jump into VSCode for actual coding,

Aren't there both copilot and Cody plugins available in emacs?

> Use VSCode for everything. For me, this requires a full-featured org mode implementation. I currently feel stuck in Emacs just because of how great org mode is.

This seems much more difficult than creating plugins you need in emacs and with the downside that customization will be much worse in vscode, especially customization of behavior with things like hooks.

> Letting go of bug-for-bug compatibility with Emacs as a goal. Let's let the quirky behavior die off and move forward with a more cohesive program, even if it looks a little bit different.

If you don't have compatibility, then you aren't really implementing org-mode... you are starting fresh.

That's okay, but you'll likely annoy org-mode users and developers as documents ending in `.org` start not working the same.

Also there are languages besides Rust and Haskell that have an org parser implementation. For instance one written in Javascript already has a spec as you explain it and is used in production for organice[0]:

> Why is this project useful / Rationale

> Org mode in Emacs is implemented in org-element.el (API documentation). The spec for the Org syntax is written in prose. - https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser

> Portable. It should not be difficult to get this integrated into any editor.

This tells me you already have a language in mind such as Lua (can't think of any other easy to integrate languages)? I'd argue that's not very popular either though.

0: https://organice.200ok.ch/

I mean , you have parsers for JS and CLJS https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser

I don't think you did. You probably used the sister project https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser which has a well known issue regarding what you are describing: https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser/issues/56

organice has no such performance issues (and does not run on the JVM). I use it daily with 5k LOC files.

EBNF grammar - https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser/blob/master/resources...

From the readme:

> Org grammar for tree-sitter. It is not meant to implement emacs' orgmode parser, but to implement a grammar that can usefully parse org files to be used in neovim and any library that uses tree-sitter parsers.

This grammar is in active development and is being used by nvim-orgmode/orgmode [1], a org-mode neovim plugin.

Some additional resources some might find useful:

* Org Syntax - https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html

* EBNF grammar - https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser/blob/master/resources...

[1] https://github.com/nvim-orgmode/orgmode

There's at least a parser using that as a spec at https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser

We have an issue with more information and we are working on it: https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser/issues/56

If you’re open to use a different Lisp, then maybe https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser is something for you.

I just wanted to chime in and mention that the folks who wrote organice[0] also came up with an EBNF grammar[1] for org-mode. Also of tangential interest is that work is actively being done on creating a tree-sitter version[2] of the grammar, although that work is not public (yet).

[0] https://github.com/200ok-ch/organice

[1] https://github.com/200ok-ch/org-parser/blob/master/resources...

[2] https://github.com/kristijanhusak/orgmode.nvim/issues/31#iss...

No, Neorg does not use the same markup as Org-mode. They use their own specification that is specifically designed to be different from Org-mode spec.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nvim-neorg/norg-specs/main...

Furthermore, each item you have listed as a benefit to Org-mode is in fact capable of being done in Markdown via plugins for neovim, and probably other markdown editors, like Loqseq, Roamresearch, or Obisidian, much in the same way you speak of plugins that interface with .org docs.

https://github.com/wthollingsworth/pomodoro.nvim

https://github.com/Myzel394/easytables.nvim

https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki

So, my suggestion is that before dismissing a comment regarding a plugin that is unfamiliar to you, is to read its spec, and then try to understand why people would be perhaps dismissive of that tool, especially when it chooses to conflict with existing, more popular choices.

you might want to look at how vimwiki does markdown tables https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki

I've been thinking of setting up a note taking enviroment in neovim. I've been searching around, and plugins as vimwiki, and nabla.nvim are great choices for me. I'm using Notion right now because of the great commands that brings that make the note taking pretty enjoyable. But the dividers, or putting background to text are features that I don't wanna lose, if possible.

I wrote a manuscript in vim a couple Novembers ago, for NaNoWrimo. I used a couple plugins, primarily Goyo [1] to add some margins, but otherwise, yeah, plain vim.

I don't think it was really any more productive than my current workflow in Obsidian. Vim keybindings are more useful for editing than for writing (and for editing code in particular, where the changes you're making are much more structured). Also, while the extra features afforded by Obsidian don't really make a difference during the writing process, I find they're really useful for outlines and other preliminary work, which is something of a point against a vim-only workflow unless you want to use vimwiki [2] or something.

Granted, Obsidian is still a markdown-based tool, so there's still some level of minimalism going on there, but by that point we're really discussing markup vs word processors, which is its own conversation—and to my mind, a much more important one. I much prefer working in markup than in a rich text editor, because plain text is easy to edit and process through the terminal, and because it lets me separate style choices from content.

I find that the markdown live preview that editors like Obsidian and Typora provide (and which vim doesn't) is a really nice compromise between a slick composing experience and the technical affordances of markup. Between that and Obsidian's hypertext features, I think I'll stick with Obsidian for the foreseeable future.

[1]: https://github.com/junegunn/goyo.vim

[2]: https://vimwiki.github.io/

I use vimwiki.

Hey folks, I have been using Neovim for the past 2 years, don't have any complaints, however, I really want to give Emacs an honest try but not really sure where to start. I want to do basic text editing, programming and something similar to vimwiki (https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki)

How about learning vim and using vimwiki ?

What, we're talking about wikis and vim, and not mentioning vimwiki?

https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki

I tried a whole bunch of personal wikis over the years (I see Zim has been mentioned, that's one of the ones I remember trying) and this is the only one that stuck.

I have created full on programs to systematically created screenshots with the game emulators with RetroArch. Also an automation tool to use a preexisting program named chdman that converts files into a needed format (also unpacking from archives). A little Python script to create a recents list of files for Vimwiki. I also created a program to access 🌈 emojis 🌈. I wrote my own GE Proton downloader and manager. Hell even the window manager I am using on Linux is written and configured in Python, Qtile. I wrote one or two plugins for it and the entire configuration is written in Python, meaning I can use functions, modules and every logic of Python to enhance it. It's Awesome.