Re: First look at Guile Std Library available

[prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)]

Richard Todd <richardt@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> I'd argue that it's extremely helpful to users if they only have to
> deal with "package X requires Guile-Library v1.5 or above", rather
> than "package X requires these versions of these 17 modules: ..."

As long as each module does a decent job of not breaking compatibility
too much, and as long as modules are easy to install, I don't think
it's much of a problem for them to be separated.

>> I don't think syslog is a good idea regardless of the language.  It's
>> more flexible to print logs to stdout/stderr; then it's easy to choose
>> another program to add to the pipeline for filtering and storing the
>> logs.
>
> If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
> (in other words, what does this have to do with the topic at hand???)

You asked about logging, so I was responding to that individual point.
Maybe I misunderstood you.

> If this many people really don't think that guile is missing basic
> library services, maybe it's just not right for guile.

I'm not saying that nothing is missing; I agree that for many tasks,
it's much easier to find libraries for Perl or Python than for Guile.
I'm saying that the problem (finding and organizing software) is
bigger than Guile, and so the solution should be as well.  Solving the
same problem over and over again in different microcosms is a waste of
effort.  I also don't think aggregation of separate modules into a
single package is necessarily a good idea.


paul


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