On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> On Jul 2, Robby Findler wrote:
>> Those numbers seem pretty small in today's disk sizes,
>
> Obviously -- but the issue is not diskspace.
>
> And Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> I feel like I routinely download programs and dev environments where
>> the distribution is over 100MBs.
>
> winooski:~/mail eli> rpm -q --queryformat '%{SIZE} %{NAME}\n' tcl perl ghc
> js python ruby lua plt-scheme | sort -n
> 595769 lua
> 962834 js
> 1441553 ghc
> 1679403 ruby
> 3669827 tcl
> 22866733 python
> 35175610 perl
> 69558809 plt-scheme
Did you forget java and gcc?
:)
Robby
>
> Robby:
>> but I do agree that there is value in being able to divide up the
>> distribution and to be able to stratify things so we can better keep
>> track of our dependencies.
>
> Yes, that's exactly my point.
>
>> (BTW, just a random question: have you thought about trying to
>> visualize the collection-level dependencies with, say, dot?)
>
> I didn't get to that yet. I suspect that it's not what Petey did: it
> should be a graph of dependencies between collections rather than
> modules. Cycles there should be much more alarming IMO than looking
> at the module-level graph.
>
>
>> It seems like you're after something that would allow multiple
>> collections with the same name. Is that part of it, all of it, or
>> mostly irrelevant to your main issue?
>
> It is relevant, but inaccurate: what I'm after is a way to split
> "packages" below the collection level. Without that, the only way to
> make an extensible `data' thing would be to have collections like
> `data-list', `data-stack', etc. (I'm *not* suggesting that as a
> better alternative...)
>
> --
> ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
> http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
>
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
