Kyle Andrews <[email protected]> writes:
> Kyle Andrews <[email protected]> writes: > >> There seems to be some secret Guile incantation I am overlooking. Could >> you give me a hint of what this could be? > > Tobias pointed out to me that the Guile developers could be to blame > here. They appear a bit too preoccupied with prematurely optimizing the > speed of code with the result that it has already been made inaccessible > before users have a fighting chance to interactively study it to > understand how it works. > > The workflow described in the Guile manual seems like it would be > perfect. It suggests I should be able to just modify the source code and > reload it into the running environment. Unfortunately, I don't know how > to associate my running environment via the Guix REPL with my git > checkout. Reading a few hours later I apologize that I came off a bit harshly. I am grateful to guile writers for sharing their work. I appreciate that it is a challenging task making a computing system which is approachable while also being fast when it needs to be. There will always be some room left for additional improvement. I am starting to feel intense pressure to move on to my next project. My colleagues just don't get it. I do, and I really really want to show them that reproducible research can be done without much trouble even for scientific workflows mixing R and python packages and scripts, which are probably the most complex workflows "in the wild" in my neck of the woods. So, even if they don't get it yet, they might in a few months when their projects break as the software ecosystem moves on to the next fad. It always does. >From a broader perspective, sometimes the only way for people to get things is if they see a lot of pressure from other peers in their field to do it. If it is perceived as a "go do" and not as an arduous journey with a realistic prospect of failure, then it will get done. I want to make sure it's the former. To that end, I want there to be an entry in the cookbook for this. I just sent a patch outlining my ideas for what the scope should be. Of course, since I can't actually figure it out yet, it's more of a draft at present. Honestly, I couldn't get my poor ancient laptop to even finish compiling the inferior - much less try using that inferior with your package-with-explicit-python. I'm just wishing that this approach will work in the near future. So, please don't let anyone include it yet :)
