[asdf-devel] ASDF2 cache control?

[Robert Goldman]

On 4/5/10 Apr 5 -9:53 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
> Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info>
> writes:
> 
>> On 4/4/10 Apr 4 -9:50 PM, Faré wrote:
>>>> I would in order prefer the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  disable output-translations by default.
>>>>
>>> I think we can't do that, because of things like system-installed source code
>>> and users who use both clisp and ecl (that share the .fas suffix) or
>>> i386 and x86-64 SBCL (that share the .fasl suffix), etc.
>>>
>>> If a novice wants to know where the fasls are, I prefer to give the explanation
>>> once than to give plenty of explanations with as many special rules.
>>
>> Ah.  I see.  Then is there a "disable output translations for MY files,
>> and do the right thing with system installed code"?
>>
>> I agree with you about people who use clisp and ecl, multiple SBCLs, ACL
>> + SBCL, but I'm not convinced that those people are common enough that
>> we should arrange the world around them.  I am, after all, one of these
>> people and I am a user of ASDF-BINARY-LOCATIONS.
>>
>> However, there are a lot of people out there who use only a single CL.
>> Indeed, I work with them, both in my company and out.
> 
> Even if they work only with one implementation, why do you think they
> want their source directories be cluttered with fasls which just plays
> bad with RCS, grep, tar, and other tools?

With all due respect, I don't care why they want this.  I just know that
they do.  They want ASDF to just build systems for them and get out of
their way and not complicate their lives.  They want the configuration
of ASDF to be handed to them on a platter.

I have weaned many of these people from just using big files full of

(compile-file-if-needed ...)
(load ...)

They do not want to learn ASDF any more than I want to learn autoconf
just to build a piece of software, and I respect that.  I don't fix my
car, I just drive it.

cc by default drops .o files right in front of you.  People seem to live
with that just fine.

I used a symbolics for many years happily without fussing with the
location of the binaries.

I think it's great that we have output-translations, and I have
gradually spread their use, but I want to make the first spoonful of
ASDF go down easily.  This, IMO, means that if someone tells you to use
ASDF, and gives you an ASDF system definition, you can load it and run.
 You don't have to learn the whole thing, you just do it, and it acts
pretty much like a smarter replacement for COMPILE-FILE, just like make
is a smarter replacement (from a user standpoint) for cc.

I also want the first spoonful of ASDF2 go down easily.  This, IMO,
means that it should behave as much like ASDF 1 as possible, modulo bug
fixes, when it's turned on.  Fiddling with the buttons and dials should
give you all kinds of new goodness, but the /obligation/ to fiddle with
buttons and dials should be avoided.

There are far too many FMs out there, and we cannot expect users to R
them!  If they want a new feature (if they want to install a shiny SBCL
next to their copy of an old one, and need to keep the fasls from being
confused, or if they like to have all their fasls together somewhere),
great, they will read the manual.  If they just want to load a system,
they shouldn't have to and, in any case, we should not expect them to.