This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Guile project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: (Meta) Guile and direction


I don't think you understood my arguments at all.

Part I - about the syntax; I don't want a class-based object
system and I have already stated this a willion times in this
thread. I want a syntax that makes code smaller and easier for
classheads to learn. Afterwards someone even told me CLOS
_does_ have such a syntax, using a colon as delimiter (foo:bar)
so I don't think it's so big a deal.

Part II - focus; my problem here is that there are about 3
groups within the projects with different goals, none of which
are the same goals advertised in the Guile homepage. Everybody
knows development with no analysis/design is futile; you can't
efficiently solve problems if you don't know WHAT problem
you're solving. Guile isn't progressing; it's wandering around.
Everytime someone thinks one feature is cool this feature is
implemented and that's about it; there is no "manifesto", no
roadmap, wishlist, design spec or anything like that.

Worse, as there isn't a clear direction, everytime a cool
feature is proposed it generates endless polemic (I'm not
talking about my little syntax proposal; even universally loved
stuff like goops and the environment system generated more
flack than we would like to see in such a project) because it
isn't clear at first sight whether this new proposal helps,
hinders or doesn't affect the overall project goals.


What I'm asking here is simple; discuss around and find out
what are the Guile Project's goals. If possible, write a
roadmap. Then update the Guile homepage to reflect the results
of this discussion.

It's easy to think "damn this guy is nuts, of course Guile has
a direction, I wish he'd just shut up". Ok, if you think Guile
"obviously" has a direction already, please post a reply to the
list telling people what direction is that in your opinion and
watch as most of the others disagree.

From what has already been said on this list, I can propose a
few different goals to be chosen from (non-exclusive list):

- the generic extension/scripting interpreter and library that
is described in the Guile homepage

- the coolest Scheme interpreter/library ever (ok this can be

- (as someone suggested) a Scheme implementation meant to
"bring Scheme to the masses" (this _must_ be elaborated if it
is the correct choice)

Note that these aren't really mutually exclusive; the point
about stating goals is stablishing priorities.

Please everyone, at least consider the vague possibility that I
am right this time.

On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 10:05:08AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Lalo, this discussion has gotten out of control.
> The approaches to object orientation that CLOS and C++ represent have
> important and fundamental differences.  It doesn't make sense to pop
> in on a project, suggest that a fundamental piece of design must be
> reversed for the good of the project, and then get mad if people
> disagree.
> Yes, CLOS is different.  But Scheme is pretty darn different to begin
> with.  Honestly, if I accept your argument that we must give people
> what they expect, I don't think the changes would stop at CLOS.
> It seems to me that CLOS is much more in the spirit of Scheme / Lisp
> than a C++ - style object system.  I think there are arguments on both
> sides, but I think CLOS is a comfortably defensible choice.  If you
> disagree with us, it doesn't mean that either we or you are off our
> rockers.

          Hack and Roll  ( )
            News for, uh, whatever it is that we are. 
                 pgp key in the personal page

Brazil of Darkness (RPG)    ---

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]