<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-08-25 04:53 PM, Ken Tilton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALNptTKuGWHV2GLKjzuH=52VAstCFRwjRQNt3ywZ+cmsVgADXw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Packages are
massively overrated. This is not Java where every frickin
source file is a namespace. There is a certain obsessive
compulsiveness about packages that does nothing but slow
developers down. Well, right, they are a palliative for the
OCD disease. But it *is* a disease, so that does not count.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">What part of
agile do we not understand? Fences, boxes, categories, types
all invented for their own sake let us bask in our
taxonomicity while getting no code written, and god help the
sucker who tries to use our OCD mess forever battling package
issues.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Stop. Wrong
way. Go back.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Ken,<br>
<br>
How might we use this criticism constructively?<br>
<br>
For the intention of having other people use the source code and
possibly being picked up by Quicklisp, what do you propose instead,
if packages are overrated? My understanding: Quicklisp relies upon
ASDF systems, which in turn builds upon packages by convention.
What have I missed there?<br>
<br>
<br>
This is separate from being agile. I see agile methodologies as how
to attain a "release" most effectively while criteria or
requirements continue evolving. <br>
<br>
The question of the original post is ultimately about the release as
a discrete artifact.<br>
<br>
In my case and for many others, the release means playing nice with
other code fetched by Quicklisp as well as minimizing barriers for
other people to comprehend and reason about the code without
involving original authors or current maintainers. Using
conventional mechanism such as packages and ASDF systems serves that
end.<br>
<br>
<br>
When you say, "Go back", go back to what?<br>
<br>
The days of downloading a tar file-- or worse, a single source
file-- from assorted locations in hopes of having it all work
together thankfully ended for the most part. I've happily traded
that era for repeatable, reliable builds with optional
version-pinning and am forever thankful to Xach for bringing this to
contemporary CL users.<br>
<br>
Or have I misunderstood your points?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
-Daniel<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>