Re: Opining on "modern" development practices (was Re: Merging the “binary” NPM importer?)

[Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com>]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Katherine,
>
> Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> It’s an unusual situation, but it seems that “modern” development
>>> practices make it hard or impossible to meet our standards in the first
>>> place; yet, we’re missing out on a whole range of free software packages
>>> by not doing anything.  Offering the tool while not compromising on our
>>> standards seems like a reasonable middle ground.
>>
>> I think this is yet another example of the "worse is better"[1] debate,
>> seemingly still ongoing in the world, thirty years later.
>>
>> I don't have much practical to say on the subject, but a few things have often
>> occurred to me which someone may find useful or interesting to ruminate on:
>>
>> 1. The premise of the "worse is better" philosophy seems to me to have been
>>    proven true. Development tools and environments which are easier to get,
>>    start using, and distribute, proliferate. And these communities produce the
>>    most software. As you pointed out, some of the software itself is free and
>>    useful.
>>
>> 2. Sometimes these ecosystems (e.g. Javascript) are so volatile, bad things fall
>>    out. It is difficult to stay abreast of changes, there are security issues
>>    (e.g. tainting a very common dependency, bootstrapping issues, etc),
>>    maintenance issues, and lots of wasted effort rewriting things. Still, a
>>    large percentage of developers' time and energy goes into that ecosystem
>>    because of point one, and they create useful things.
>>
>> 3. Sometimes these ecosystems are so volatile, good things fall out. Through the
>>    lens of experience, solutions and tools are created which address the hard
>>    won lessons.
>>
>> 4. This seems to be how nature and evolution work.
>>
>> Me? I like well-ordered things that have been thoughtfully produced. But I think about number four a lot.
>
> I do too.  :-)

Think about #4, or like well-ordered things?

> My early free software experience was that of a project managed in
> typical MIT style: the Hurd; I learned a lot from that.

Have you written about this anywhere? I'd love to hear your opinions.

> In Guix, I think we’ve always tried from Day 1 to do the Right Thing,
> but also from Day 1, we’ve always tried not to go too far and to “cut
> corners” when doing the Right Thing would have jeopardized practicality.
>
> The package simplification work that landed this summer in
> ‘core-updates’ is an example of a case where the Right Thing was delayed
> for several years because it just wasn’t attainable in a timely fashion
> back then.

I have been trying to follow the project more closely for the past few months, but I have completely missed this simplification work. Is there somewhere I can read about it? Scroll back through guix-patches maybe?

> Merging the “binary” npm importer IMO is one way to acknowledge that
> there’s a very concrete use case, that we’re unable to address it the
> Right Way, but that we offer a middle ground for users.

Thanks for these comments, and the maintainers' stewardship of Guix. I believe taking the middle way is usually the correct path, and I think Guix has benefited from it, and will continue to do so.

-- 
Katherine