> On 30 Dec 2015, at 03:12, Pascal J. Bourguignon <p...@informatimago.com> > wrote: > > On 30/12/15 02:25, Pascal Costanza wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 1) I believe package-local nicknames are very useful. Being able to use >> abbreviations and avoiding conflict between nicknames from the use site are >> just good ideas. >> >> 2) I don’t believe hierarchical package names are useful. That’s a Javaism >> which just makes things too complicated (especially if they then also are >> reflected by the directory hierarchy - beurk ;). > You're saying that because there are only 1279 systems in quicklisp so it's > still manageable as a flat list. But wait a little with tens or hundreds > more systems and packages!
No, I’m saying this although there are already 1279 systems in quicklisp. I actually had to rename a library twice because my name choices clashed with existing library names, so I understand the problem that people want to solve. I nevertheless stand by my statement. (I have sufficient experience with Java to know that this doesn’t help much.) > Probably, you've never worked with a big source base with a directory > hierarchy didn't match the naming scheme. You shouldn’t make too many assumptions about other people’s experiences. >> Also, I agree with Kenny that splitting libraries into too fine-grained >> small little packages is not a good recipe for organizing your projects. >> Lisp packages want to be big, and there is no major disadvantage in doing >> so, and I fear that hierarchical package names encourage unnecessary >> fine-grained splitting. That just creates visibility problems, and distract >> from solving /actual/ problems. > Agreed. > >> Basing package names on domain names provides the illusion that you have >> unique names, but domain names come and go, companies change owners, >> repositories move to different hosting servers, etc., etc., so they are not >> as stable as one might think. If people use sufficiently long package names >> that can then be renamed locally using package-local nicknames, that’s >> sufficient, IMHO. > > Oh, you're right. Now I see the light. I will therefore rename my > com.informatimago.* package into 2915BB3ECC3D45029DBF41BD48508E2E.* > And let's not talk about the 3 or 4 different CLON packages we have... I don’t strongly object to hierarchical package names. If that’s what the community wants, I’m fine with it. Package-local nicknames are more important, though. I especially would be unhappy if hierarchical package names were adopted, but package-local nicknames weren’t. All IMHO, YMMV, etc., etc. ;) Pascal -- Pascal Costanza The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer.
