csr21 at cantab.net
Tue Jun 2 07:40:50 UTC 2009
Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> writes:
> Yes, I know that the user can do this him/herself, but given that the
> user inevitably will want to add the commands
I'm sorry, but "inevitably" is not the right word.
> seems to me a strong argument for doing it. After all, libraries
> are supposed to save work, not make it!
But the work has already been done: support for loading ASDF systems
without any new ASDF operator is already present in Cusp, Slime, CCL,
SBCL, Allegro-like REPLs, LW-ADD-ONS and almost certainly other
> While Kenny's review of his first experience with ASDF was, perhaps,
> unhelpfully inflammatory, I do agree with the central thesis that it's
> too hard to use ASDF out of the box and that we should make it easier.
Is it too hard to load a system, or too hard to write a system
definition? If the former, will that actually be addressed by
changing (to the newbie) one cryptic incantation for another, or would
the effort be better spent working on other barriers to entry?
Look, I don't have a veto; you guys will end up doing what you want
anyway. I would like to say that I think it's a mistake; that Kenny's
(and others') public complaints aren't going to go away as a result of
this change; that people will still find it weird and odd; and that
the loss of generality in the interface will eventually come and bite.
(Though perhaps not before ASDF gets replaced by a newly-named
mostly-backwards-compatible successor; here's hoping).
More information about the asdf-devel