Edit the Background section

Concentrating on getting rid of the passive voice.

lp-in-org.org

@@ -12,17 +12,7 @@
 #+TEXINFO_HEADER: @syncodeindex pg cp
 #+TEXINFO_HEADER: @syncodeindex vr cp
 
-# NOTES: To create the info, call M-x org-texinfo-export-to-info
-#
-# Next, load the file, currently called lp-in-org.info
-#
-# Turn on Info-mode (notice the capital) or run:
-#    (add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.info\\'" . Info-mode))
-#
-# Hit C-j to run ‘Info-forward-node’ to start browsing the results.
-#
-# Or simply execute the following s-expression with `C-x C-e':
-#
+# NOTE: To create/view info, execute the following with `C-x C-e':
 # (progn (find-file (org-texinfo-export-to-info)) (Info-mode) (Info-top-node))
 
 This is a book on /Literate Programming in Emacs/ using Org Mode.
@@ -44,15 +34,13 @@ We assume the reader of this book to be fairly proficient with [[info:Emacs][Ema
 As you probably know, Org is large, and the features for writing, evaluating and connecting blocks of source code in a document are extensive, and documenting them all is a daunting task. This book attempts to both guide and inspire a programmer to enjoy coding in a /iterate way/.
 ** Background
 
-Literate Programming was first invented by Donald Knuth in the 1980’s in an attempt to emphasize communication to other members on your team. He [[http://www.literateprogramming.com][once wrote]]:
+Donald Knuth invented Literate Programming in the 1980’s in an attempt to emphasize communication.
+Playing with the idea that a "program" shouldn't be only computer instructions, but more like /literature/, he called his approach, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming][literate programming]].
+In his 1984 essay "Literate Programming", republished in CSLI, 1992, pg. 99, he [[http://www.literateprogramming.com][wrote]]:
 
 #+begin_quote
 I believe that the time is ripe for significantly better documentation of programs, and that we can best achieve this by considering programs to be works of literature. Hence, my title: "Literate Programming."
-#+end_quote
-
-He had been playing around with the idea that a "program" shouldn't be a bunch of computer instructions, but more like /literature/. He called his approach, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming][literate programming]]:
-
-#+BEGIN_QUOTE
+…
 The practitioner of literate programming can be regarded as an essayist, whose main concern is with exposition and excellence of style. Such an author, with thesaurus in hand, chooses the names of variables carefully and explains what each variable means. He or she strives for a program that is comprehensible because its concepts have been introduced in an order that is best for human understanding, using a mixture of formal and informal methods that reinforce each other.
 #+END_QUOTE
 
@@ -60,12 +48,12 @@ The practitioner of literate programming can be regarded as an essayist, whose m
 Wanting programs to be written for human understanding, with the order based on logic of the problem, and not constrained to deficiencies in the programming language, we create a /literate programming document/ that generates a document for people *and* the source code files.
 
 The idea is to invert /code/ peppered with /comments/ to /prose/ interjected with /code/.
-A pre-processing program would then write the code blocks out into a source code file (called /tangling/) and create a published document of both the prose and the code formatted for reading (called /weaving/).
+Originally, a pre-processing program would then write the code blocks out into a source code file (called /tangling/) and create a published document of both the prose and the code formatted for reading (called /weaving/).
 
 What happened to his concept and why don’t we program this way?
 
 After introducing the concept in a white paper, he expanded the idea by publishing an example of how the source code would be written in [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Bentley][Jon Bentley]]’s “Programming Pearls” column [Communications of the ACM 29, 5 (May 1986), 364-3691].
-[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_McIlroy][Doug McIlroy]] added a rebuttal where he boiled Knuth’s example into a single (now famous) shell command:
+[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_McIlroy][Doug McIlroy]] added a rebuttal where he boiled Knuth’s code into a single (now famous) shell command:
 
 #+begin_src bash
   tr -cs A-Za-z '\n' |
@@ -84,10 +72,9 @@ A wise engineering solution would produce—or better, exploit—reusable parts.
 
 His example proved his point.
 
-While the resulting source code /tangled/ from a literate programming document, may look the same as a source file coded directly, this idea did not significantly change our industry
-However, given a complex problem without the necessary components, perhaps composing your initial solution in a literate program can be helpful?
-
 Perhaps this process was a bit too much writing for most engineers, who view code comments as unnecessary, over-sized baggage requiring maintenance.
+Isn’t our goal to write /readable code/?
+While the resulting source code /tangled/ from a literate programming document, may look the same as a source file coded directly, this idea did not significantly change our industry.
 
 Some projects like:
   - [[http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/index-jsp-135444.html][Javadoc]] for Java
@@ -96,9 +83,9 @@ Some projects like:
 
 Can extract an API from the comments of the source code could be viewed as a /step/ toward literate programming. [[https://wiki.haskell.org/Literate_programming][Haskell]] has a partial implementation built into the compiler so that it doesn't require a special comment syntax or an external macro system.
 
-What most of these systems lack is that the code, not the logic, drives the presentation order. For instance, many languages require imports, variable definitions and functions to be declared before they are used. Knuth's original "WEB" program allowed a code block to refer (include) another code block in no particular order... you could describe your code in any order that made the most sense.
+In most of the systems listed above, the code, not the logic, drives the presentation order. For instance, many languages require imports, variable definitions and functions to be declared before use, and one can’t image literature beginning with such a way. Knuth's original "WEB" program allowed a code block to refer (include) another code block, allowing the author to describe the code in any order that made the most sense. This ended the debate about: top-down vs. bottom-up.
 
-Knuth's original /literate programming/ approach was text with minimal editor support, as he only wrote the WEB program to create (/weave)/ the documentation and write (/tangle)/ the source code.
+Knuth's original /literate programming/ approach had minimal editor support, as he only wrote the WEB program as a pre-processor to create (/weave)/ the documentation and write (/tangle)/ the source code.
 
 From my perspective, literate programming can only be useful with help from an editor, for example, many scientists use [[http://ipython.org/notebook.html][iPython's notebook]], now expanded as the [[https://jupyter.org/][Jupyter Project]]. However, unlike iPython's storage of the files in JSON format, I think a literate file should be readable text, as [[http://transcriptvids.com/v/oJTwQvgfgMM.html][Carsten Dominik]], the creator of Org, wrote:
 
@@ -106,7 +93,7 @@ From my perspective, literate programming can only be useful with help from an e
 “In the third millennium, does it still make sense to work with text files? Text files are the only truly portable format for files. The data will never get lost.”
 #+end_quote
 
-An Org file, with its readable syntax, and amazing support from Emacs, gives a programmer a good environment to discover, explore and clarify complex code.
+An Org file, with its readable syntax, and amazing support from Emacs, gives a programmer a good environment to discover, explore and clarify complex code in a literate way.
 
 *Further Reading:*
 
@@ -116,30 +103,30 @@ An Org file, with its readable syntax, and amazing support from Emacs, gives a p
   - [[http://www.hazyblue.me/2014/02/where-have-all-the-literate-programs-gone/][Where have all the Literate Programmers gone?]]
 ** Advantages of LP
 
-Some of the advantages of literate programming for your source code include:
+Some of the advantages of literate programming for your code include:
 
    - Clarification of your thoughts of complicated situations
    - Better documentation for your source code
    - Great for team communication for issues and problems
    - Inter-language facility for using the /best tool for the job/ (for instance, querying a database and then manipulating it with a general purpose language)
 
-The advantages of literate programming in Org is the advantage of Org itself.
+The advantages of literate programming in Org is the advantage of Org itself:
 
   - Text formatting, like emphasized text and lists
   - Org's /organizational/ features, like embedded heading sections marking subtrees
   - Tasks management, like Agendas, embedded /with your code/
   - Note-oriented REPL for investigating new libraries and APIs
 
-I made this last point as part of my essays on [[https://howardism.org/Technical/Emacs/literate-devops.html][Literate Devops]] ideas. Briefly, REPLs can be a wonderful approach to discovering features of libraries and modules, as one types expressions, and sees the results. You can view a shell running in a terminal as a REPL. The problem is a REPL is /transient/. The output can be lost in the Terminal’s scroll buffer.
+I made this last point as part of my essays on [[https://howardism.org/Technical/Emacs/literate-devops.html][Literate Devops]]. Briefly, REPLs can be a wonderful approach to discovering features of libraries and modules, as one types expressions, and sees the results. You can view a shell running in a terminal as a REPL.
+A problem arises when the programmer needs to return to the results of past commands and expressions in the transient environment of a terminal.
 
-With LP in Org, you can still type an expression, evaluate it, but the /print/ is embedded back into your file buffer. As an added bonus, the results can be named, and used as input variables in other block of code (and these code blocks can be written in a different computer language).
+With LP in Org, you can still type and evaluate an expression, but Emacs embeds the output (the P in REPL) back into your file buffer. As an added bonus, you can /name/ the results, and use that as input variables to other blocks of code (and these code blocks can be written in a different computer language).
 
-However, if you are reading this book, you probably see the advantages, and now want to learn how to master this tool yourself.
+However, if you are reading this book, you probably see the advantages, so let’s begin a short journey to master this tool yourself.
 * Getting Started
+Since Emacs comes with Org, and Org comes with the ability to write literate programming, If you have a running Emacs instance, you begin your journey by opening up a file with an extension of =.org= (or any text file with =org-mode= enabled). This guide assumes basic familiarity with both Org and Emacs.
 
-At this point, we should assume basic familiarity with Org … just not working with Code.
-
-Since Emacs Lisp is /built-in/, this *Getting Started* guide will use that language. In subsequent chapters, we will assume different languages.
+Since Emacs comes with Lisp, this *Getting Started* guide will use that language for our examples. In subsequent chapters, we will describe how to use different languages.
 ** Create a File
 Create an org file. Set some variables.