Re: Add guix install command

[Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3891 bytes --]

Hi,

As a new user myself, I think I'd like to add my own opinion.

When the subcommands are explicitly namespaced (as in "guix package -i
foo"), I find it easier to (1) understand and (2) look up usage
information. In my opinion, shoving many disparate actions (and thus,
options) into a single global namespace complicates matters greatly. It
puts more cognitive burden on the user. If you do that, then users have to
remember whether the word that comes after "guix" is a full-fledged
subcommand, or just a shortcut into one (and they also have to remember
whether there are any differences or limitations when using one versus the
other). If you really want a short alias for "guix package --install", you
can always create one yourself in exactly the way you want using a shell
alias, a shell function, or a wrapper script. It doesn't seem necessary, to
me, to complicate usage by adding alternative invocations by default. It id
better to provide a simple default and let the users customize it if they
want to.

In addition, I also think that an invocation like "guix install" would be
suboptimal because it wouldn't be immediately clear whether the invocation
will install packages or modify the system itself (like "guix system
reconfigure foo"). This is an example of how removing the namespacing might
complicate things.

You've mentioned apt and suggested that it does this the right way (apt-get
install pkg). I respectfully disagree. I think that, from a user
perspective, it's cleaner to have subcommands than it is to have one
command for installing (apt-get) and another for searching (apt-cache).
With apt, it may seem like you are invoking a single command, but you have
to remember which apt tool to use, which in the end isn't much different
than the way guix does it. But I'm glad guix uses subcommands instead of
separate commands, since I think that's cleaner, easier to remember, and
easier to look up information about.

I think keeping things simple makes a lot of sense, especially since you
can add your own convenience wrapper easily using shell aliases etc. Thanks
for listening to my opinion - Guix is great and I'm looking forward to
using it more and more!

Thank you,
Chris

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015, 05:36 Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the comments.  Just a couple points, happy to wait for
> Ludovic to get back.
>
> On Fri 07 Aug 2015 14:22, "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
> writes:
>
> >> In the case of "guix install", yes.  However what would you show for
> >> "guix install --help"?  What would error messages show: "guix package"
> >> or "guix install"?  Would the user perceive it as a separate command or
> >> would the fact that it is an alias be visible to the user?
> >
> > If we were to go the aliasing route, we could still make the --help
> > and --version flags show 'guix install' with a simple pattern match on
> > the arguments list.
>
> You would have to modify the set of arguments as well.  What it mean to
> say e.g. "guix install --remove foo bar" ?  If it were supported as an
> alias and all guix package options were there, "guix package --remove
> foo bar" would remove foo and bar, but you might expect "guix install
> --remove foo bar" to remove foo but install bar -- but even then "guix
> install --remove" is nonsensical.
>
> To me I see the advantage of guix install as "paving the cowpaths" --
> making a common use case easy while still pointing to more powerful
> tools.
>
> > every other tool encapsulates it's full functionality under a single
> > subcommand: import, system, environment, gc, lint, etc.
>
> This is a very slight advantage from the maintainer POV but from the
> user's POV it's a negative thing, I think.
>
> "guix package" just does too much: for example try "guix package
> --install foo --list-available".  It doesn't install foo at all, or even
> try!
>
> Andy
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4704 bytes --]