On 29 Mar 2014, at 20:07, Stelian Ionescu <sione...@cddr.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-29 at 19:59 +0100, Pascal Costanza wrote: > [...] >>>>> That's not how it works, unless you include a bit for *rdff* in the >>>>> name of the fasl cache directory — and since the planning is done >>>>> based on pathnames before the compilation happens, that should still >>>>> be *rdff* at the beginning of compilation. Otherwise, the build is not >>>>> deterministic, and two different toplevel programs will poison each >>>>> other's builds. >>>> >>>> …not even if you :force t? >>>> >>> If you make :force t the default, you lose incrementality, and fast >>> startup time for end-user scripts. If you say "things are unsafe by >>> default", you lose modularity and you make it impossible to distribute >>> scripts to end users. Either way, if you don't have a deterministic >>> build *by default*, easy deployment of scripts to end-users is not >>> possible anymore. >> >> I understand your desire for deterministic builds. I don’t understand your >> desire for deterministic builds being the default. > > Utterances like this is what makes "academic" an insult in certain > circles. You’re quoting me out of context. If deterministic by default had no cost associated with it, it would clearly be the desirable choice. But it has a cost associated with it, so this is less clear. If I failed to convince you that this is the case, and that other people may have other preferences, then I apologize. Pascal -- Pascal Costanza The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer.
