[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?
From: |
felix winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules? |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Sep 2009 08:25:38 +0200 |
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:45 PM, John Cowan<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I suspect, though, that they use all units because it's easier to include
> them all than because they are all needed. Eggs in particular ought
> to be selective, in my opinion, to reduce dependencies. After all,
> there is really no principled reason for any particular bit to be a unit
> rather than an egg....
To support static linking, units are still needed, at least for core stuff.
Regarding the dependencies: this doesn't convince me. I see no
technical merit. I also don't see how it makes design and implementation
of programs and libraries easier. What do you really gain, I ask?
>
>> What I like is convenience: banging together code for quick jobs with
>> as little effort as possible.
>
> I agree, which is why I support the idea of a compound unit. Convenience
> isn't always the predominant concern, though, especially when it comes
> to deployment, particularly deployment as C source (regrettable though
> that is).
Reducing the number of core libraries will make deployment actually
easier. Can you be more specific?
cheers,
felix
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, Peter Bex, 2009/09/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, Alex Shinn, 2009/09/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, John Cowan, 2009/09/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, John Cowan, 2009/09/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?,
felix winkelmann <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, John Cowan, 2009/09/02
Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, Kon Lovett, 2009/09/01