proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Andy Wingo]

Hello all,

Like many of you, I am enamored of the "git style" of command line
interfaces: "git add this", "git commit that", etc.

Guile has guile-tools, which, though not well documented, does support
this.  "guile-tools compile foo" loads the `(scripts compile)' module,
and punts argument processing out to it.

But guile-tools is really a verbose name, and it doesn't read well.  I
propose renaming it to "guile do", spelled "guido".  As in, "guido
compile foo".

It has the nice mnemonic value, and it's also a name in some places, so
it has a pleasant subject-verb-object when you say it: "Guido, compile
my-file.scm."  "Waiter, bring the wind list."

Then if we get a CPAN, it will add guido commands by defining (scripts
...) modules.  "guido update".  "guido install".  "guido upgrade".  And
so on.

We'll have to improve the default help that guile-tools gives, of
course.

What think ye?  Of course we'd keep around the "guile-tools" binary
for some years yet.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hey!

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> it has a pleasant subject-verb-object when you say it: "Guido, compile
> my-file.scm."

Is the pun[*] intended?  :-)

FWIW I’m happy with the verbose name and I fear the joke wouldn’t be to
everyone’s taste.  I’d also be happy with a shorter name, though.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

[*] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> it has a pleasant subject-verb-object when you say it: "Guido, compile
>> my-file.scm."
>
> Is the pun[*] intended?  :-)

Not really, no :)

> FWIW I’m happy with the verbose name and I fear the joke wouldn’t be to
> everyone’s taste.  I’d also be happy with a shorter name, though.

OK.  Anyone have any other good short names?

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[nalaginrut]

> On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> 
> > Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> >> it has a pleasant subject-verb-object when you say it: "Guido, compile
> >> my-file.scm."
> >
> > Is the pun[*] intended?  :-)
> 
> Not really, no :)
> 
> > FWIW I’m happy with the verbose name and I fear the joke wouldn’t be to
> > everyone’s taste.  I’d also be happy with a shorter name, though.
> 
> OK.  Anyone have any other good short names?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy

Well~I really like "guido". But I'll suppose "guide" if somebody
complains the "metaphor" of "guido"...


-- 
GNU Powered it
GPL Protected it
GOD Blessed it

HFG - NalaGinrut

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[nalaginrut]

> > On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> > 
> > > Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
> > >
> > >> it has a pleasant subject-verb-object when you say it: "Guido, compile
> > >> my-file.scm."
> > >
> > > Is the pun[*] intended?  :-)
> > 
> > Not really, no :)
> > 
> > > FWIW I’m happy with the verbose name and I fear the joke wouldn’t be to
> > > everyone’s taste.  I’d also be happy with a shorter name, though.
> > 
> > OK.  Anyone have any other good short names?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Andy

Well~I really like "guido". But I'll suppose "guide" if somebody
complains the "metaphor" of "guido"...

-- 
GNU Powered it
GPL Protected it
GOD Blessed it

HFG - NalaGinrut

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Barry Fishman]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> FWIW I’m happy with the verbose name and I fear the joke wouldn’t be to
>> everyone’s taste.  I’d also be happy with a shorter name, though.
>
> OK.  Anyone have any other good short names?

If you like short why not 'gdo' which surprisingly doesn't have much in
the way of confusing google matches.

But I rather like the longer but meaningful 'with-guile'.

-- 
Barry Fishman

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Neil Jerram]

On 21 March 2011 12:16, Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> wrote:
> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>> FWIW I’m happy with the verbose name and I fear the joke wouldn’t be to
>>> everyone’s taste.  I’d also be happy with a shorter name, though.
>>
>> OK.  Anyone have any other good short names?

I wouldn't normally reply from work, but I'd like to stick an oar in
while the discussion's hot...

I rather like `guile' :-)

Seriously, in the mainline case where guile-tools executes a script,
it boils down to just:

(exit (apply (module-ref (resolve-module (list 'scripts
(string->symbol s)) #:ensure #f) 'main) (cdr args)))

I don't think we need a 198 line script to do that, and I think it
would be good for the main guile executable to have this function,
i.e. "apply a named procedure, from a module that can be found in the
load path, to the remaining command line args".

Regarding the other 190 or so lines currently in guile-tools - I'm
sure they have some value, but I don't see why their domain should be
limited to the code in scripts/*.  This could evolve into a more
general tool for extracting and presenting meta-information about
Guile modules.

Regards,
       Neil

PS. Re "guido" I had a similar response as Ludo - I think that would
be perceived by many people as a bit odd.

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon 21 Mar 2011 15:10, Neil Jerram <neiljerram@gmail.com> writes:

> On 21 March 2011 12:16, Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> wrote:
>> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>>> FWIW I’m happy with the verbose name and I fear the joke wouldn’t be to
>>>> everyone’s taste.  I’d also be happy with a shorter name, though.
>>>
>>> OK.  Anyone have any other good short names?
>
> I wouldn't normally reply from work, but I'd like to stick an oar in
> while the discussion's hot...
>
> I rather like `guile' :-)

This is fun :)

Here are a few threads the PLT folk had:

   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2540
   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2693/focus=2715
   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2775

They ended up going for "racket" and "raco", AFAIK.

Perl uses perl, AFAIK: like perl -M CPAN.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Neil Jerram]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> This is fun :)
>
> Here are a few threads the PLT folk had:
>
>    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2540
>    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2693/focus=2715
>    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2775

Well indeed, that pretty much covers the problem space, including my
thought above.

Some further Guile-specific thoughts, in no particular order.

- "gel" is short; and it's the name of Guile before it was Guile; and
  suggests sticking things together; and AFAIK isn't already being used
  for anything else; and has similar key positions as "gdo", so is
  equally easy to type.

- FWIW, the current differences between 'guile-tools THING . ARGS' and
  'guile -e "(@@ (scripts THING) main)" -- . ARGS" appear to be that

  1. the guile command eventually does (main (cons "guile" ARGS)),
  whereas guile-tools does (main . ARGS) (aka (apply main ARGS))

  2. the guile command runs the REPL afterwards.

- I think I might find guile-tools (as is) less bothering if its
  built-in commands (help, version and list) were rewritten as scripts
  themselves.  Then it would be clearer that the remaining code in
  guile-tools was just implementing the main-invocation convention for
  scripts/*.

(Incidentally I have a patch pending for scripts/README, to remove some
of the statements about that convention that are no longer true.)

On the overall point, of having a separate name instead of just "guile",
I think it just comes down to the observation that "because the `git'
experience seems definitive".  And I agree that it's hard to argue with
that.

Best wishes for reaching a decision on this!

      Neil

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon 21 Mar 2011 22:50, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> - "gel" is short; and it's the name of Guile before it was Guile; and
>   suggests sticking things together; and AFAIK isn't already being used
>   for anything else; and has similar key positions as "gdo", so is
>   equally easy to type.

Gel is good!

> - I think I might find guile-tools (as is) less bothering if its
>   built-in commands (help, version and list) were rewritten as scripts
>   themselves.  Then it would be clearer that the remaining code in
>   guile-tools was just implementing the main-invocation convention for
>   scripts/*.

Good idea also!

> On the overall point, of having a separate name instead of just "guile",
> I think it just comes down to the observation that "because the `git'
> experience seems definitive".  And I agree that it's hard to argue with
> that.
>
> Best wishes for reaching a decision on this!

Heh, thanks!  I'm going to stir the pot a little bit now, with another
suggestion for the name :)

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Neil Jerram]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> On Mon 21 Mar 2011 22:50, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
>> - "gel" is short; and it's the name of Guile before it was Guile; and
>>   suggests sticking things together; and AFAIK isn't already being used
>>   for anything else; and has similar key positions as "gdo", so is
>>   equally easy to type.
>
> Gel is good!

But I agree that Guild is better!

>> - I think I might find guile-tools (as is) less bothering if its
>>   built-in commands (help, version and list) were rewritten as scripts
>>   themselves.  Then it would be clearer that the remaining code in
>>   guile-tools was just implementing the main-invocation convention for
>>   scripts/*.
>
> Good idea also!

I'll do that - if you haven't already started it.

     Neil

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[dsmich]

---- Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> wrote: 
> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> >> FWIW I’m happy with the verbose name and I fear the joke wouldn’t be to
> >> everyone’s taste.  I’d also be happy with a shorter name, though.
> >
> > OK.  Anyone have any other good short names?
> 
> If you like short why not 'gdo' which surprisingly doesn't have much in
> the way of confusing google matches.

This gets my vote.  Nice and short.  Three letters, just like "git".  The minimal google matching is great too.

-Dale

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[David Pirotte]

Le Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:27:13 +0100,
Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> a écrit :

> On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> 
> > Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> >> it has a pleasant subject-verb-object when you say it: "Guido, compile
> >> my-file.scm."
> >
> > Is the pun[*] intended?  :-)
> 
> Not really, no :)
> 
> > FWIW I’m happy with the verbose name and I fear the joke wouldn’t be to
> > everyone’s taste.  I’d also be happy with a shorter name, though.
> 
> OK.  Anyone have any other good short names?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy

Personally, I would still use a 'long' name, and perhaps guile-do [which for
backward compat. could be a symlink to guile-tools].

I am saying this because as a user, I type guile and hit tab to know 'what's
available' ... [I know you will argue that I should know better what guile provides
in terms of scripts, but this way at least i gives me all possibilities, which I may
study [later] ...]

	[besides, anyone can create its own and preferred short name as a link to
	the distributed script]

Cheers,
David

Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools

[Jose A. Ortega Ruiz]

On Mon, Mar 21 2011, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> Hey!
>
> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> it has a pleasant subject-verb-object when you say it: "Guido, compile
>> my-file.scm."
>
> Is the pun[*] intended?  :-)

A more or less obvious pun (but not as smooth grammatically) would be
beguile(d)... "beguiled install".  beguile has some pleasant synonyms that
could be considered: i like enchant, charm and (one of my favourites)
bewitch.

Just my silly 2 cents,
jao

on the importance of names (was: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools)

[Andy Wingo]

Howdy,

On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> "Guido, compile my-file.scm."
>
> Is the pun[*] intended?  :-)

OK, point taken.  Too bad though!

I have another proposal, but first I want to elaborate on why I think
guile-tools is a silly name.

First of all it's not a good noun.  I don't know how to capitalize it,
for example.  Guile-Tools ?  Too camel-casey.  Guile-tools ?  It's long
and slanted, like a boat launching ramp.  guile-tools ?  But then it
doesn't look like the start of a sentence.

Also, how do you feel when you say "guile-tools compile foo.scm" ?  I
kinda feel like a tool!  Its clunkiness makes me feel clunky.  Not good!

These difficulties have real repercussions.  A clunky name leads us to
avoid mentioning the thing, which isn't good either for the tool itself
or for peoples' awareness of the tool.

Names are important, is what I'm saying.

So!  My new proposal is "guild".

  guild update
  guild compile foo.scm
  guild install fmt

Guild has the usual advantages of being short and having a name that
shares structure with Guile.  Of course there is the disadvantage that
it's only one character away, and my fingers are programmed to type "e"
after "guil", so there would be some retraining.

But that doesn't mention the real advantage of "guild", which is how you
feel when you type it or tell it to someone: that you pertain to a
secret society of wizards!  Who wouldn't want to pertain to such a
guild?  I feel awesomer just for having typed it.

Also if the main purpose of the tool will be, besides compilation,
interaction with our CPAN, then it really will be about a collective of
people producing spel(l)s (cf. Barski's "Casting SPELs with Lisp").
Sweet!

What do folks think about this harebrained idea?

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: on the importance of names (was: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools)

[Noah Lavine]

The coolness is irrefutable. :-)

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Guido, compile my-file.scm."
>>
>> Is the pun[*] intended?  :-)
>
> OK, point taken.  Too bad though!
>
> I have another proposal, but first I want to elaborate on why I think
> guile-tools is a silly name.
>
> First of all it's not a good noun.  I don't know how to capitalize it,
> for example.  Guile-Tools ?  Too camel-casey.  Guile-tools ?  It's long
> and slanted, like a boat launching ramp.  guile-tools ?  But then it
> doesn't look like the start of a sentence.
>
> Also, how do you feel when you say "guile-tools compile foo.scm" ?  I
> kinda feel like a tool!  Its clunkiness makes me feel clunky.  Not good!
>
> These difficulties have real repercussions.  A clunky name leads us to
> avoid mentioning the thing, which isn't good either for the tool itself
> or for peoples' awareness of the tool.
>
> Names are important, is what I'm saying.
>
> So!  My new proposal is "guild".
>
>  guild update
>  guild compile foo.scm
>  guild install fmt
>
> Guild has the usual advantages of being short and having a name that
> shares structure with Guile.  Of course there is the disadvantage that
> it's only one character away, and my fingers are programmed to type "e"
> after "guil", so there would be some retraining.
>
> But that doesn't mention the real advantage of "guild", which is how you
> feel when you type it or tell it to someone: that you pertain to a
> secret society of wizards!  Who wouldn't want to pertain to such a
> guild?  I feel awesomer just for having typed it.
>
> Also if the main purpose of the tool will be, besides compilation,
> interaction with our CPAN, then it really will be about a collective of
> people producing spel(l)s (cf. Barski's "Casting SPELs with Lisp").
> Sweet!
>
> What do folks think about this harebrained idea?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
> --
> http://wingolog.org/
>
>

Re: on the importance of names (was: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools)

[nalaginrut]

> Howdy,
> 
> On Mon 21 Mar 2011 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> 
> > Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> >> "Guido, compile my-file.scm."
> >
> > Is the pun[*] intended?  :-)
> 
> OK, point taken.  Too bad though!
> 
> I have another proposal, but first I want to elaborate on why I think
> guile-tools is a silly name.
> 
> First of all it's not a good noun.  I don't know how to capitalize it,
> for example.  Guile-Tools ?  Too camel-casey.  Guile-tools ?  It's long
> and slanted, like a boat launching ramp.  guile-tools ?  But then it
> doesn't look like the start of a sentence.
> 
> Also, how do you feel when you say "guile-tools compile foo.scm" ?  I
> kinda feel like a tool!  Its clunkiness makes me feel clunky.  Not good!
> 
> These difficulties have real repercussions.  A clunky name leads us to
> avoid mentioning the thing, which isn't good either for the tool itself
> or for peoples' awareness of the tool.
> 
> Names are important, is what I'm saying.
> 
> So!  My new proposal is "guild".
> 
>   guild update
>   guild compile foo.scm
>   guild install fmt
> 

My girl friend think "guile-tool" could be abbreviate to 
"guil+t"=guilt...just joking, I don't think that's a proper name...hope
not enraging somebody. :-)



-- 
GNU Powered it
GPL Protected it
GOD Blessed it

HFG - NalaGinrut

--hacker key--
v4sw7CUSMhw6ln6pr8OSFck4ma9u8MLSOFw3WDXGm7g/l8Li6e7t4TNGSb8AGORTDLMen6g6RASZOGCHPa28s1MIr4p-x hackerkey.com
---end key---

Re: on the importance of names

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello Guilers of the Guild!

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> So!  My new proposal is "guild".

[...]

> But that doesn't mention the real advantage of "guild", which is how you
> feel when you type it or tell it to someone: that you pertain to a
> secret society of wizards!  Who wouldn't want to pertain to such a
> guild?  I feel awesomer just for having typed it.

OK, I think you’ve convinced me.  :-)

Would you like the new name to be available starting from 2.0.1 or 2.1?

Ludo’.

Re: on the importance of names

[Andy Wingo]

On Wed 30 Mar 2011 17:52, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hello Guilers of the Guild!

Haha! Hello, Guiler of the Guild!

> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> So!  My new proposal is "guild".
>
> [...]
>
>> But that doesn't mention the real advantage of "guild", which is how you
>> feel when you type it or tell it to someone: that you pertain to a
>> secret society of wizards!  Who wouldn't want to pertain to such a
>> guild?  I feel awesomer just for having typed it.
>
> OK, I think you’ve convinced me.  :-)
>
> Would you like the new name to be available starting from 2.0.1 or
> 2.1?

Sweet!

It would be nice to add it in 2.0.x, as it's a compatible change.  But,
there's no need for it to hold back a 2.0.1 release; there's a lot of
NEWS to write up there, and we should get that out soonish.

Regards,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: on the importance of names

[Ludovic Courtès]

Howdy!

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> It would be nice to add it in 2.0.x, as it's a compatible change.

OK, sounds good!  I guess you’ll have to add the explanation of why the
name’s so great to the manual.  :-)

> But, there's no need for it to hold back a 2.0.1 release; there's a
> lot of NEWS to write up there, and we should get that out soonish.

Agreed.

How about pushing the release by the end of next week (Apr. 10th)?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: on the importance of names

[Andy Wingo]

Hi!

On Thu 31 Mar 2011 11:32, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> It would be nice to add it in 2.0.x, as it's a compatible change.
>
> OK, sounds good!  I guess you’ll have to add the explanation of why the
> name’s so great to the manual.  :-)

Done.  Here's the initial text:

  4.5 Using Guile Tools
  =====================

  Guile also comes with a growing number of command-line utilities: a
  compiler, a disassembler, some module inspectors, and in the future, a
  system to install Guile packages from the internet.  These tools may be
  invoked using the `guild' program.

       $ guild compile -o foo.go foo.scm
       wrote `foo.go'

     This program used to be called `guile-tools', and for backward
  compatibility it still may be called as such.  However we changed the
  name to `guild', not only because it is pleasantly shorter and easier
  to read, but also because this tool will serve to bind Guile wizards
  together, by allowing hackers to share code with each other using a
  CPAN-like system.

     *Note Compilation::, for more on `guild compile'.

     A complete list of guild scripts can be had by invoking `guild
  list', or simply `guild'.

Please fix it to say something different if you want :)

>> But, there's no need for it to hold back a 2.0.1 release; there's a
>> lot of NEWS to write up there, and we should get that out soonish.
>
> Agreed.
>
> How about pushing the release by the end of next week (Apr. 10th)?

FWIW I have a draft of NEWS I'd like to push soonish.  Perhaps we can
release this week.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: on the importance of names

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> skribas:

> On Thu 31 Mar 2011 11:32, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> It would be nice to add it in 2.0.x, as it's a compatible change.
>>
>> OK, sounds good!  I guess you’ll have to add the explanation of why the
>> name’s so great to the manual.  :-)
>
> Done.

Cool!  :-)

> FWIW I have a draft of NEWS I'd like to push soonish.  Perhaps we can
> release this week.

I won’t be able to make it this week, but I’m happy if somebody else
takes care of it.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: on the importance of names

[Neil Jerram]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> So!  My new proposal is "guild".
>
>   guild update
>   guild compile foo.scm
>   guild install fmt

Yes, that's nice.

     Neil