[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