I should take a look at that, in case there are features there that org-mode doesn't already have and are worth stealing.
More seriously, that looks like at least a sizable subset of org-mode's capabilities, implemented in a way that doesn't require clearing the hurdle that getting comfortable with Emacs tends to be. How is it on the import/export/interop side?
Org-mode itself seems like a tool where you have to read fifty pages of documentation to make good use of it. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I've tried it a couple of times, and it never seems to be worth the complexity penalty vs. using a plain text file.
It depends what you mean by "good use", I suppose; I started out with just the very basic outliner and checklist features, and expanded from there. It didn't take much more than knowing those features existed, and what they looked like, to start using them. You do need to refer heavily to documentation when getting started with more complex features, but that seems like a fair tradeoff to me.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "complexity penalty vs. using a plain text file", since Org files are plain text files, with all the magic implemented in the UI layer - I regularly edit Org files on my phone with Editorial, and while the UI is obviously rudimentary by comparison, such editing is not actually difficult to do. Will you elaborate on what you mean here?
As somebody who only makes a pretty basic use of org-mode I disagree.
Without having to read anything you just have to remember to use * to mark sections and * * for subsections and so on. Then you use tab to expand/collapse the sections. That's rather intuitive, not more complicated than a plain text file and already you have better highlighting and additional functionality.
Then sometimes I wonder "hey, I'd like to have a link to this URL in this file" or "I'd like to export this to HTML or PDF so that I can send it to my friend who doesn't use org-mode without losing the formatting". And then you look in the manual and you (generally) find what you're looking for.
Sure if you want to be an org-mode wizard you'll have to learn quite a bit but I really don't see "the complexity penalty vs. using a plain text file". The complexity is only here if you want it.
Edit: also the array auto-formatting is a godsend. Doing it by hand in text files is tedious.
It allows you to edit a tree structure. Unlike most tree editors, which lay out the tree in one dimension, this uses 2 dimensions. How is that not a tree editor other than it looking unfamiliar to you?
I just tried this on macOS. I really like the concept but: It does not conform to macOS UI standards (I could live with that), and it is very slow (I cannot live with that).
The third screenshot [here][1] is hilarious :)
[1]: http://strlen.com/treesheets/docs/screenshots.html
I should take a look at that, in case there are features there that org-mode doesn't already have and are worth stealing.
More seriously, that looks like at least a sizable subset of org-mode's capabilities, implemented in a way that doesn't require clearing the hurdle that getting comfortable with Emacs tends to be. How is it on the import/export/interop side?
Never mind Emacs, Emacs is easy.
Org-mode itself seems like a tool where you have to read fifty pages of documentation to make good use of it. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I've tried it a couple of times, and it never seems to be worth the complexity penalty vs. using a plain text file.
It depends what you mean by "good use", I suppose; I started out with just the very basic outliner and checklist features, and expanded from there. It didn't take much more than knowing those features existed, and what they looked like, to start using them. You do need to refer heavily to documentation when getting started with more complex features, but that seems like a fair tradeoff to me.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "complexity penalty vs. using a plain text file", since Org files are plain text files, with all the magic implemented in the UI layer - I regularly edit Org files on my phone with Editorial, and while the UI is obviously rudimentary by comparison, such editing is not actually difficult to do. Will you elaborate on what you mean here?
As somebody who only makes a pretty basic use of org-mode I disagree.
Without having to read anything you just have to remember to use * to mark sections and * * for subsections and so on. Then you use tab to expand/collapse the sections. That's rather intuitive, not more complicated than a plain text file and already you have better highlighting and additional functionality.
Then sometimes I wonder "hey, I'd like to have a link to this URL in this file" or "I'd like to export this to HTML or PDF so that I can send it to my friend who doesn't use org-mode without losing the formatting". And then you look in the manual and you (generally) find what you're looking for.
Sure if you want to be an org-mode wizard you'll have to learn quite a bit but I really don't see "the complexity penalty vs. using a plain text file". The complexity is only here if you want it.
Edit: also the array auto-formatting is a godsend. Doing it by hand in text files is tedious.
Also available in Debian https://packages.debian.org/sid/treesheets
You can also create a slideshow from it:
https://github.com/YaakovDavis/TreeSlides
Seems like a enhanced personal wiki and away from PIM style and more added MindMap style. I would say this is not a tree editor.
what features/behavior would you want to have it qualify as such?
It allows you to edit a tree structure. Unlike most tree editors, which lay out the tree in one dimension, this uses 2 dimensions. How is that not a tree editor other than it looking unfamiliar to you?
TreeSheets is really awesome, and I say this after having tried my own share of outliners and mind-mapping tools.
I just tried this on macOS. I really like the concept but: It does not conform to macOS UI standards (I could live with that), and it is very slow (I cannot live with that).
It uses wxWidgets for UI, which does a poor job on OS X. What actions are slow? I have it here on a MBP and it appears to work just fine.