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 <dherr...@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.
