[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] Suggestion for the ports unit:
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] Suggestion for the ports unit: port-pipe
Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:08:41 +0200
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 01:52:21AM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote:
> >I might call it port-reflect.
> >I would make it an egg first and maybe if there is high enough
> >demand promote it to core.
> AFAIK, there isn't a well defined method of reporting, let alone
> determining, "high enough demand". An automated "poll" of submitted
> code is possible but it doesn't touch the sources that constitute
> "applications". In any case such a direct search is probably not a
> good indicator of "hidh demand".
> Say an extension in "high demand" uses a feature in "low demand"
> otherwise. Is this feature a candidate for the core? (Transitive
> closure to be applied here. ;-)
> The situation of a feature set produced by the composition of core &
> extensions can be annoying - "why isn't it just here?" I don't have a
> good way of answering this. What is a "complete set of core features"
> analogous to the foundation of a building. (The metaphor eat you for
> I kinda think features only necessary for the compiler, interpreter,
> minimal language standard & basic platform concepts belong in the
> core. (And by core I mean the runtime library. Just to be clear.)
> (The "basic platform concepts" is a really gray area; tcp, for
> example, is everywhere, except embedded systems, hum.)
> FWIW, I would like a configurable "core". One that allows for a "full
> language standard" (what ever that means) but can be built for minimal
This is a horrible, horrible idea from a support point of view.
Whenever someone has a problem with Chicken, he doesn't have a problem
with "Chicken" but with "Chicken configured with --enable-foo --enable-bar
--disable-bells-and-whistles". Testing this means having to reproduce
the exact build that user has.
PHP does exactly this. In my opinion, whatever PHP does should be
regarded with major suspicion.
In my experience, there are several developers who just download a
binary build (MAMP or XAMPP, for example) and think that distro *is*
"PHP". They don't even know that it's configurable and that using
feature X requires one to go through additional steps on a Unix
platform, like installing extra libraries, configuring them etc.
Please don't let Chicken turn into a hopelessly unmaintainable pile
Sorry if I'm ranting, but this is years of PHP frustration speaking.
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth