Hi! ASDF does not "build on packages". ASDF loads files, in some of which usually packages happen to be defined, but ASDF doesn't depend on that. You could define an entire system only of symbols in the cl-user (or even keyword) package, and neither ASDF nor Quicklisp would care.
The only concern of packages is organizing symbols. The question is how that should correspond to the file structure (and how that should look like). There is a continuum there, and I guess that it would help to have some resource showing the usual patterns. Yours aye Svante Am 27. August 2018 04:47:28 MESZ, schrieb Daniel Pezely <dan...@pezely.com>: >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
