[Jtsummers]

My point, which you missed: It doesn't matter what Knuth does.

thr-nrg rightly pointed out in their comment that you can place the code wherever you want. You then say, "Knuth puts it at the top" (meant as a criticism of his style).

My point (so you don't miss it again): You can place the code wherever you want when doing a literate programming style. It also doesn't matter what Knuth does with his includes because his style does not dictate your style or my style or anyone else's style. So put it wherever you want. His style does not matter.

[cxr]

I didn't miss it. I replied to your question of whether it matters: yes, it does.

Your point doesn't make any sense. ("_You_ can place the code wherever _you_ want when doing a literate programming style.") Literate programs are supposed to be read. Of course a writer can write however they want. You could write a book where everything that isn't a proper noun ends with an uppercase letter, except for proper nouns, which are all lowercase. It will be shit.

[Jtsummers]

What matters is the exposition. Does the presentation (order, style, etc.) communicate what you intend for it to communicate, and does it communicate effectively. That's what matters.

Does it matter what Knuth does? Nope. I don't care for that aspect of his style. I already said I put the includes (when a text gets past the draft stage at least) toward the end. We're in violent agreement with respect to how we (if I understood you correctly) often or generally put them into LP texts.

You're just weirdly caught up on criticizing Knuth's style for some reason. Have fun shouting into the wind. The rest of us know, it doesn't matter. The goal is to communicate effectively and not whine about things that don't matter.

[cxr]

I don't think I'm the one missing the point here. You're adamant that I'm complaining about Knuth's style. I'm complaining that programs he's written don't show us that exposition matters (rather than him just telling us that it does).

Exposition does matter. He's not doing it. That's the problem.

Dumping a big lump of include statements or defines at the beginning of the text and then saying don't worry about it isn't an example of someone who actually believes that exposition matters. It's incontrovertibly devoid of exposition—not just a matter of it being one's "style".

> What matters is the exposition.

> Does it matter what Knuth does? Nope.

Either it matters, or it doesn't. Pick one.

[ParetoOptimal]

> Exposition does matter. He's not doing it. That's the problem.

I agree. Here's an example I give of an emacs configuration in the typical style which I don't find especially useful versus one that does use exposition:

https://www.paretooptimal.dev/finding-the-best-style-of-lite...

Here's a sample:

    * My emacs use-cases
    ** Version control with Git
    *** use magit as a porcelain
    #+begin_src elisp
     (use-package magit)
    #+end_src
    *** enable easily showing history of a file
    #+begin_src elisp
     (use-package git-time-machine)
    #+end_src