Am So., 1. Sept. 2019 um 22:55 Uhr schrieb Neil Van Dyke < n...@neilvandyke.org>:
> Simon Schlee wrote on 9/1/19 3:28 PM: > > > > Try not to make identifiers be simple generic terms, like `watch` > > > > > > I strongly disagree with this statement. > > I think what you say is valid, and I agree in some situations. > > However, we're talking about reusable third-party packages, which are > used pretty much the same as much of the "standard library" of Racket. Maybe the differences in our priorities stem from the differences in the way that we use racket. I do not have the perspective of working on multi-person big code bases with racket and the special gotchas that come up with that. Maybe that is one requirement that should be considered and talked about explicitly. Consider creating an rfc/issue that describes some of the sticking points with current racket with big projects? I think it would give valuable insight and allow me and other people to see problems from a different perspective. I imagine that there is a big design space of solutions that would help for big projects and probably also rackety inventions that could still be made. The reason why I find it appropriate to just call it `watch` is, because from my personal experience I find it highly unlikely that a file watching package would be used globally throughout an entire code base. It is much more likely that it will be used in 1-3 small modules and it is also likely that those modules will convey a general idea that they are all about handling files and the require will make it obvious that a file-watching library is used. Especially if you are using DrRacket and its ability to show arrows to the require that provides that identifier. I think we might not completely agree on the watch example, but it is good to see the different perspective and something to keep in mind while further thinking about it. When it comes to worse is better, I do agree in the sense of getting things started and producing results in the short term. But I also think that it is valuable to sometimes take a break on short term solutions and consider what long term possibilities there could be. This might only result in a vague idea for future development or direction and you may end up needing the short term solution anyway, but I think its worth it to try to imagine different ways of doing things. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CA%2BoR%3DW%2Bi9-2W7wh0yQi%3DoN6bQA80n5fNaq1FFvivUWtdcnR9bg%40mail.gmail.com.
