Re: [Dragora-members] Relation of Qi and Qire

[Michael Siegel]

Am 05.06.20 um 21:24 schrieb Matias Fonzo:
> El 2020-06-05 09:44, Michael Siegel escribió:
>> Am 04.06.20 um 20:40 schrieb Kevin "The Nuclear" Bloom:
>>>
>>> I partly agree with this line of thought: why have 2 interfaces for the
>>> same command? There really is only 1 reason for such a thing:
>>> easy-of-use. Instead of folks trying to remember if they're to use Qi or
>>> Qire, they can just use Qire since that's how most people will be
>>> working with packages (if they choose to use remote repos, of course).
>>
>> My idea is basically the same, only that I'd suggest users simply always
>> use Qi.
>>
> 
> I think it could be done as long as Qi can call those extensions
> externally, since they are files written in Scheme/Scheme dialect.

Right. You could just implement remote commands in Qi in such a way that
executing them would make Qi try to trigger Qire and return an error if
that fails.

> Ideally the package manager is based ALL on Scheme, the bad thing is
> that imposing Scheme for the bootstrap does not seem to be good idea...

Well, Fennel is very small, isn't it? So, writing everything in Fennel
could be an option. Also, Fennel compiles to Lua, so you need Lua (and
only Lua, if I got that right) anyway, which would also make it viable
to write Qi all in Lua.

A potential problem with both approaches might be that Fennel as well as
Lua might not be up to the task without extra libraries. But then, you
could still use GNU core utilities from a Lua script pretty easily, I guess.

That said, I'd definitely keep rewriting Qi for later and concentrate on
making it work in sh for now.


Michael