It would be interesting to see a serious study about how such coordination happens in other ecosystems. In some cases, it looks like the environment impose the coordination somehow (ex: R). In cases like Python, despite the messy proliferation of libraries with redundant functionalities, people seen to be happy (or ignorant about the problems). Haskell is trying to address version dependencies, but it looks still complicated to understand the options available. Anyway, for me, it is a social issue more than a technical one.
But from time to time we see a significant transformation, I believe we all agree about the huge impact of Quicklisp! Best, -- Alexandre Rademaker http://arademaker.github.io <http://arademaker.github.io/> http://researcher.ibm.com/person/br-alexrad <http://researcher.ibm.com/person/br-alexrad> > On 17 Dec 2017, at 05:51, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe CL could benefit a lot from a little bit more coordination > on library development and maintenance. But obviously, part of the > reason I'm jumping ship is that I don't believe this is going to > happen (the other part is my wanting to do things that can't be done > on top of CL-provided abstractions). The activation energy for some > kinds of interactions is too high in CL. And that's fine, to each his > own.
