[asdf-devel] Make the CL syntax predictable

[Zach Beane]

Attila Lendvai <attila.lendvai at gmail.com> writes:

>>> regarding the recent discussions i'm generally baffled why it is at
>
>>> all a question whether to make a build software deterministic or
>>> not. in my view if there's anything in the global state that has an
>>> effect on the building of a software, anything, then it's a bug.
>>
>> I think one question is whether it's worth taking a path to this goal
>> that breaks programs that currently work. I don't think all such
>> programs are bitrotted junk that can be fixed up in a day.
>
>
> those programs that currently work will keep on working if ASDF is not
> upgraded.
>
> no upgrade, no breakage.
>
> to me it's a very strange argument that the right way to avoid
> breaking unmaintained old code is by hindering change that makes new
> things better in the future.

Indeed, it would be strange to discuss such things. I'm not talking
about unmaintained old code, I'm talking about code that works by design
and as designed within the features and behaviors of the current system
that will no longer work.

I am receptive to "Some things will break, but change is necessary and
this approach minimizes breakage" but less receptive to "Nothing will
break" and "Things that break deserve it" and "People who do not want
any breakage are braindead losers" and "I will personally fix anything
that breaks."

Zach