On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Neil Van Dyke <[email protected]> wrote: > * I agree that it's good to have the "#!" executable be called "racket". > > * I'm ambivalent about having a monolithic "racket" or "rico" command. A > small downside is that monolitic does feel more like a closed platform. A > small upside is that it looks (deceptively) friendly in demos. > > * I suspect that "rico" will make Googling harder, in multiple ways. I'd > suggest avoiding racketeering puns, and incorporating "Racket" or some > abbreviation of same into every executable command name. Examples: > "racket-setup" "racket setup" "rkt-setup" "rkt setup". This also makes it > easier to find for people who find commands for software they know the name > of by doing filename completion (a few Scheme implementations have this > small usability failing).
FWIW, part of this is motivated from the fact that we're coming from a situation where the dev tools are spread out among a bunch of executables and you'd never really guess where some of the functionality is (quick: where is zo-file decompilation?). I have sense (possibly wrong) sense that adding fewer executables to the path is more friendly, but also having a single command means that we get a chance to print something out when there is nothing on the command line, but as someone who pushed for combining all of the dev tools into a single thing, using a common prefix also seems okay. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
