Re: [d.love@dl.ac.uk: dynamic loading of native code modules]

[Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@giblet.glug.org>]

   From: Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>
   Date: 16 Apr 2002 21:23:24 +0100

   True, but I'm still slightly worried that one of the influences on
   {the set of people interested enough to maintain surrounding packages}
   might be a gradual trickle of incompatible changes in the core.

different users have different sensitivities to (interface) change.  for
some, any drop of incompatibility is like poison in the waterworks or
shameful rust buildup on an old tool, but others are not so allergic.
as a guile user, i tend to value the "hammer is clean and works the same
Always" approach (headbangers unite ;-).

   On the other hand, a project that doesn't change is a dead project,
   and packages that can't cope with a small amount of change may not be
   worth coddling, and I agree with you that the utility of recent
   additions and cleanups far exceeds that of Tcl/Tk and Ctax support.

it is useful to separate interface and implementation when discussion
change.  i would agree implementation change is inevitable and mostly
desirable, but not so easily taken wrt interface change.

guile users are all programmers who only marginally like hacking guile
itself.  interest can be motivated towards guile development by allowing
more guile users write privs, and practicing some mature process.

thi

_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user