Re: Next browser finally on master!

[Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1720 bytes --]


Brett Gilio <brettg@posteo.net> writes:
> Excuse me for not being fully aware, are you involved in the development
> of the Next browser?

I am!  John Mercouris is the original author, and I've implemented the WebKitGTK
platform for Next.

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
> I’ve read that discussion, but I don’t see how it is relevant.
> The *name* of the package surely does not have any effect on the
> features, does it?
>
> For applications like StumpWM and Next we could change the package names
> to “stumpwm” and “next”, respectively.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a strong opinion against this change.
But Lisp is special, and common sense for other packages / programming
languages don't necessarily apply here.  A few points to consider:

- While StumpWM has dropped support for anything but SBCL, Next browser
plans to support CCL (it already works but for one thing).  So we could
have a ccl-next package.

- As far as I understand, the compiler *does* change the resulting
binary, thus the resulting REPL experience will be different, because
all Lisps are different beyond the ANSI standard and other undefined
behaviour.  In other words, connecting via SLIME to ccl-next or
sbcl-next would result in a different environment.

> That these packages can *also* be used as libraries does not mean that the
> packages should have names with the “sbcl-” or “cl-” or “other-lisp-” prefix.

That would not be consistent with the Lisp library naming scheme then.
And it raises the question as to why we have bothered with the sbcl- and
ecl- prefixes so far.

Andy, any opinion on this?

--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]