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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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.
