[asdf-devel] Is this necessary in this form? Re: ASDF 1.501

[Faré]

>> I agree with James that a bootstrapped asdf would be elegant.
>> Unhappily it wouldn't be practical. asdf being only one file is very
>> useful for many reasons.
>
> please explain.
>
Distribution. Only one file to download and install anywhere, rather
than having to dig through a directory, make sure things are there,
etc. So far, it has been a constraint respected by ASDF.

Also, while I agree that additional functionality should be moved out
of ASDF and bootstrapped, I believe that the current ASDF has very
little functionality that could be moved out without breaking things.

> the only things with notes about upgradability were the fmakunbound
> and the two #+ecl adds. together about a dozen lines.
Configuration is part of upgradability. If ASDF has to be told in a
complex way how to upgrade, newbies won't be able to do it.
Sorry, but requiring the manual configuration of *central-registry*
just between two steps early in the build won't cut it.

> then, once asdf is configurable, is there any reason to not take abl
> out of the core?
YES! If ABL is out of the core, where would the FASLs for ABL itself go???
Or you would have to somehow make sure ABL is loaded and recompiled
from source everytime, which also sucks.
ABL is not that long, is it?

--#f
"Necessity is the mother of invention" is a silly proverb.  "Necessity
is the mother of futile dodges" is much nearer the truth.
                — Alfred North Whitehead