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

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Hi,

Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>>> 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?

Both.

>> 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.

Nope!  You’ve probably noticed that the Hurd isn’t known as a lively and
successful project, and then there are things like the Critique¹ or work
on porting the Hurd to the L4 microkernel which, while showing the
“right” direction research-wise, have also had IMO the effect of
suggesting that it’s never going to be good enough.

I think a project needs to be aware of its shortcomings, but it also
needs achievable milestones, and it needs to refrain from elitism.

¹ http://walfield.org/papers/200707-walfield-critique-of-the-GNU-Hurd.pdf

>> 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?

See <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49169>.

Thanks,
Ludo’.