On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:26:03PM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote: > Hi, > > Personally I want a core Chicken with a component orientation towards > the major sub-systems. I mean "pluggable & composable" string, number, > gc, concurrency, file components; not to be construed as an exhaustive > list. > > I see Chicken at an architectural cross-roads. Rather than pilling > capability into the core perhaps we should consider something that > qualifies as "it's all chickens down."
I don't think modularization for the sake of modularization is a good idea, but I do agree that a modular number system for example would be a decent solution to the problem we're facing right now. If we can make a cheap and generic system to do it for all types, go for it, but don't force it. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth
pgp0rpA9PEMD1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
