[mullr]

Yeah, it's really not. You CAN do knuth-style literate programming in org-mode (https://orgmode.org/manual/Extracting-Source-Code.html) I used it to make http://mullr.github.io/micrologic/literate.html.

The experience completely cured me of Knuth-style literate programming, fwiw. It's really great for making a lasting artifact about a program that's completely done. But I can count the number of programs I've worked on like that on zero fingers. Even this one isn't really done, but the cost of updating the essay along with the code discouraged me from working on it any more.

[ParetoOptimal]

> It's really great for making a lasting artifact about a program that's completely done.

My emacs configuration is the exact opposite of a program that's completely done, but I find literate programming good for managing it's complexity.

> The experience completely cured me of Knuth-style literate programming, fwiw.

If it's not too much to ask, do you mind sharing some of the pain points?

[mullr]

> If it's not too much to ask, do you mind sharing some of the pain points?

To me, the point of literate programming is that you have a coherent (literate, if you well) document that explains how the program actually works, and the reason it's put together how it is. This is NOT an easy thing to write. It takes as much organization as the program itself. I found the document structure to be continuously in flux, as I updated the program to deal with new requirements. So either document would poorly structured, or I would spend a LOT of time keeping it good.

[nesarkvechnep]

I’ve experimented with NOWEB in the past and it’s cool. I would imagine it being good for teaching. Like “these are the steps we have to take to accomplish the desired result” and then break down every step with the ability to actually build the code at the end.