From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: [d.love@dl.ac.uk: dynamic loading of native code modules] Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 01:14:22 -0700 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <874rifqeo8.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87lmbpiocf.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019290918 27643 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2002 08:21:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 08:21:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rlb@defaultvalue.org, guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16yq86-0007Bk-00 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:21:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16yq7F-0005Sv-00; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:21:05 -0400 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u4-c4c-174.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.66.186.174] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16yq6H-0005RT-00; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:20:05 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16yq0k-0003ji-00; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 01:14:22 -0700 Original-To: neil@ossau.uklinux.net In-Reply-To: (message from Neil Jerram on 16 Apr 2002 21:23:24 +0100) Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:218 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:218 From: Neil Jerram 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