Alexis King wrote on 09/01/2015 06:58 PM:
First, from Neil:
My super-strongly preferred engineering notion: backward-compatibility of a
package refers to the *documented* behavior of the package, not to actual
behavior.
These are both incredibly flawed. They might work fine in a tiny little
academic environment, but in the real world, this is almost outlandish for a
few reasons:
My intent was to emphasize the documentation first. I allude in
subsequent sentences to exceptions and such, but I want people to start
by thinking about documented behavior&interfaces as the basis for
reusing modules. Because I think not everyone is.
When people start using the term "social", I fear some might be
imagining some magical open-office pair-programming free-love
marijuana-smoking drum-circle up-voting utopia, in which all problems
are solved most effectively through free-spirited communication, not by
employing engineering skill and smart collaboration practices.
BTW, I think the "tiny little academic environment" charge is off. I
suspect I have as much varied industry experience as almost anyone on
this list. I'm speaking of real industry dynamics, and of models that I
think are viable for adoption by some real industry developers. I have
existence proofs.
Perhaps I’m wrong and it’s not as big of a problem as I think.
I agree that there is work to be done, at least for my needs. At one
point, in earlier development of the package system, I was harsh and
rude about some concerns, which I regret. My goal is to work
within/atop the accepted system.
Neil V.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to racket-dev@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/55E63A49.8020208%40neilvandyke.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
