Matthew Flatt wrote at 07/13/2013 02:56 PM:
Others seem overwhelmed by the details, unsure of how it will all work out, and disconcerted by conflicting messages from others who seem to understand the issues.
BTW, I don't know whether I'm involved in anyone being disconcerted. If I am, please let me clarify that I agree that this effort looks like a win for development of variations on core Racket, and for packaging of shrinkwrapped apps built with Racket. (Praise&condolences to those people doing a lot of non-fun work to achieve those goals.)
In addition to those goals, I also had some research and advocacy goals that are affected by the package system model. Now is not the time to get into that, but perhaps we can discuss at a later date, as the model evolves in subsequent versions of Racket.
Much secondarily, there are lots of little details, about which different people will feel differently. I suspect we'll all quickly get accustomed to the little details, and if any little detail becomes ornery for lots of people, it could be refined.
Neil V. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
