On 2018-08-25 04:53 PM, Ken Tilton wrote:
Packages are massively overrated. This is not Java where every frickin
source file is a namespace. There is a certain obsessive
compulsiveness about packages that does nothing but slow developers
down. Well, right, they are a palliative for the OCD disease. But it
*is* a disease, so that does not count.
What part of agile do we not understand? Fences, boxes, categories,
types all invented for their own sake let us bask in our taxonomicity
while getting no code written, and god help the sucker who tries to
use our OCD mess forever battling package issues.
Stop. Wrong way. Go back.
Ken,
How might we use this criticism constructively?
For the intention of having other people use the source code and
possibly being picked up by Quicklisp, what do you propose instead, if
packages are overrated? My understanding: Quicklisp relies upon ASDF
systems, which in turn builds upon packages by convention. What have I
missed there?
This is separate from being agile. I see agile methodologies as how to
attain a "release" most effectively while criteria or requirements
continue evolving.
The question of the original post is ultimately about the release as a
discrete artifact.
In my case and for many others, the release means playing nice with
other code fetched by Quicklisp as well as minimizing barriers for other
people to comprehend and reason about the code without involving
original authors or current maintainers. Using conventional mechanism
such as packages and ASDF systems serves that end.
When you say, "Go back", go back to what?
The days of downloading a tar file-- or worse, a single source file--
from assorted locations in hopes of having it all work together
thankfully ended for the most part. I've happily traded that era for
repeatable, reliable builds with optional version-pinning and am forever
thankful to Xach for bringing this to contemporary CL users.
Or have I misunderstood your points?
Thanks,
-Daniel
