I don't think I need charity.
I thought the vision for the new package system had already been
explained adequately. I would be very interested to learn how the model
is well-suited to third-party developers like me.
But -- I mean this constructively -- I'd be happy if someone simply came
out and said "this model is great for core developers, we still have to
figure out everyone else, and maybe the model isn't great for everyone
else". The reason is that I've looked at the new package system
seriously 5-6 times since it was announced, and I keep being told that
the model is intended for non-core people like me, and that someone else
knows my needs better than me. Open source reuse was an especial area
of interest to me, the package system is very important, and I've given
the benefit of the doubt 5-6 times now. (This has actually stalled most
of my public Racket work, one way or another, for about 2 years.)
I'm not harshing on Racket; just on how the new package system was
sprung on non-core people, and the narrative. It doesn't look typical
of Racket. Racket is usually in the position that it could say "we have
a better idea" (on, e.g., module system sophistication, various syntax
extension mechanisms and mixed languages support, various aspects of
DrRacket, the related pedagogic projects, etc.), and usually that
doesn't have to be said, because the superiority of Racket is
immediately apparent. That's why I've been a Racketeer for 13 years and
counting.
Neil V.
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
