[asdf-devel] Alternate default lisp system location

[Robert P. Goldman]

I get all you're saying, but I don't think it's relevant. This is for people who want to WRITE code, so hiding their code from them in a config directory doesn't make sense.

I'm fine with putting config files in those hidden directories(although I feel compelled to say that XDG makes that you complicated), but not source code that people want to edit. People shouldn't have to play ls -a hide and seek to find their own source code...

On March 12, 2014 11:20:23 PM CDT, Daniel Herring <dherring at tentpost.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
>
>> I am sorry, but I promise you that this will NOT be consistent with
>XDG. I have no idea why those people think it's a good idea to put
>files in directories where ls cannot find them.
>> 
>> ASDF already has a deeply-nested, invisible-to-ls location that is
>XDG compliant where you can put your files if that's what floats your
>boat.
>> 
>> It was writing a description of where to put your files in this
>XDG-compliant location that convinced me that we needed an alternative
>that was obvious and easily accessible.
>> 
>> In case you haven't guessed, I'm not a fan of this standard! :-)
>
>I would agree that XDG is over-engineered and under-specified.
>
>However, ls finds dot files just fine (alias ls="ls -A" if it helps),
>and 
>"normal users" usually install programs in "system directories", not
>their 
>home directory.
>
>Given the current CL ecosystem, things are constantly changing, 
>implementations provide little fasl compatibility, CL installs are
>often 
>per-user, etc.  Thus the current best default for sources is in $HOME. 
>I 
>would argue that the use of $HOME is the real problem, and "hiding"
>things 
>is the right solution for users (as opposed to developers who can be 
>expected to memorize a slightly obscure path).
>
>Two default paths is not better than one.
>
>There is a reason MS Windows has "hide system files" enabled by
>default. 
>Some things are too complicated for "casual users", and an obscure 
>"~/common-lisp" is just asking for grandma to delete the folder she 
>"doesn't want"...
>
>In systems like OS-X-style "disk images" and Java-style jarfiles, the 
>entire application is self-contained.  Thus it is quite appropriate for
>
>the full path to be user-visible, for deleting the file is uninstalling
>
>the app.
>
>- Daniel
>
>P.S.  In case I've gone off-kilter, I promise to get some sleep before
>any 
>further replies.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20140312/58b83206/attachment.html>