[asdf-devel] Make the CL syntax predictable

[Pascal Costanza]

On 29 Mar 2014, at 20:07, Stelian Ionescu <sionescu at cddr.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2014-03-29 at 19:59 +0100, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> That's not how it works, unless you include a bit for *rdff* in the
>>>>> name of the fasl cache directory — and since the planning is done
>>>>> based on pathnames before the compilation happens, that should still
>>>>> be *rdff* at the beginning of compilation. Otherwise, the build is not
>>>>> deterministic, and two different toplevel programs will poison each
>>>>> other's builds.
>>>> 
>>>> …not even if you :force t?
>>>> 
>>> If you make :force t the default, you lose incrementality, and fast
>>> startup time for end-user scripts. If you say "things are unsafe by
>>> default", you lose modularity and you make it impossible to distribute
>>> scripts to end users. Either way, if you don't have a deterministic
>>> build *by default*, easy deployment of scripts to end-users is not
>>> possible anymore.
>> 
>> I understand your desire for deterministic builds. I don’t understand your desire for deterministic builds being the default.
> 
> Utterances like this is what makes "academic" an insult in certain
> circles.

You’re quoting me out of context. If deterministic by default had no cost associated with it, it would clearly be the desirable choice. But it has a cost associated with it, so this is less clear. If I failed to convince you that this is the case, and that other people may have other preferences, then I apologize.

Pascal

--
Pascal Costanza
The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer.