Re: [cclan-list] A plurality of defsystems [was Re: rfc - delay the parsing of system components ]

[Gary K. <gw...@me...>]

Hi Richard,

How meta! (pun intended)

On it's face, I think that your idea is great.  I do, however, have  
two concerns that revolve around your statement that:

> For my part, I don't see any reason why the Lisp community should
> constrain itself to having exactly one defsystem facility.  ASDF is
> useful, but it has shortcomings, and since it's never clear which of
> ASDF's details are intended or accident, and in any case which details
> are important to anybody, ISTM that it would probably be a good  
> thing if
> alternative defsystems could co-exist.

Sometimes, I think Lisp is nothing but a plethora of ways to do the  
same thing. Maybe it's only because I'm not familiar with the  
communities, but AFAIK, if one wants to install something in Ruby, you  
look for a GEM; if you want to get something for Python, you go to  
CPAN, etc. Lisp tends to make things much harder because we keep  
inventing things. Each new defsystem adds another barrier to entry  
because it requires more setup and thinking. Choice is good; too much  
choice is paralyzing.

To my mind, ASDF has _won_. It is the default and most Lisps are  
bundled with a version of it. I think that we should be improving it,  
not replacing it. The last thing we (as a Lisp community) need is  
another defsystem -- even a 99% compatible one.

My concerns therefore are:

1. that this additional layer adds another thing to break and to  
confuse people.
2. that building a new defsystem adds another thing for people to do  
if they want to use system _foo_ that uses it.

That said, I agree that incompatible changes should not be introduced  
without a lot of thought (that's why noone commits to ASDF unless  
there is a discussion here first, right?).

--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM