Re: Including uiop and not asdf in a built application

[Faré]

> :Robert
> Am I correct in thinking that Dave's way of building monolithic bundles of
> either fasls or source code are, at least potentially, a baby version of
> cross-compilation? It seems like these are interesting specifically because
> they could be loaded into different images (otherwise, it's not clear to me
> why it would be better to build a monolithic FASL than just build an image).
>
Indeed, (monolithic) bundles are compiled in one image, loaded in another.
Same implementation, but different image. But then, as much may apply
to regular fasls; and this matters when e.g. some #+ compilation happens
based on user-configured features.

> In that case, since this would effectively be cross-compilation (albeit a
> trivial case of it), it's not surprising that the logic for dealing with
> built-in dependencies like ASDF can go awry.
>
Indeed.

> In which case delivering with Docker might be the better approach! ;-)
>
Did you mean Bazel? :-)

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
What is the shortest joke? — Communism
What is the longest joke? — 70 years of Communism in Russia

Re: package pollution by asdf

[Robert Goldman]

On 16 Jan 2018, at 10:46, Sam Steingold wrote:


Hi,

When I start CLISP with the full linking set (i.e., including all
possible extensions), I have 63 packages in (list-all-packages), and 
37

of them (more than half!) comes from asdf (22 ASDF/* and 15 UIOP/*).

I wonder if I am the only one unhappy about this.
In particular, has it ever been considered that it might be a good 
idea

to limit the number of packages asdf creates?



The large number of packages was the outcome of the restructuring of 
ASDF in terms of package inferred systems.


Arguably this provides a better way of automatically identifying the 
dependencies in a complex system like ASDF.


This is not a style of programming that I follow, myself, but it 
certainly seems like a reasonable design decision.


Undoing this would, I believe, be a monumental amount of work, and would 
also lead to a constant need to maintain complicated dependencies by 
hand.  These dependencies potentially change whenever we discover that 
one file/package needs another's capabilities.  With package-inferred 
system construction, we don't have to wrangle ASDF dependencies to keep 
the system building successfully.


To be quite honest, I can't imagine a world in which there is so much 
labor available to ASDF that such fundamentally aesthetic considerations 
would rise to the top of anyone's priority list of ASDF tasks.


Sorry,
r

Re: package pollution by asdf

[Pascal Bourguignon]

> On 16 Jan 2018, at 17:46, Sam Steingold  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> When I start CLISP with the full linking set (i.e., including all
> possible extensions), I have 63 packages in (list-all-packages), and 37
> of them (more than half!) comes from asdf (22 ASDF/* and 15 UIOP/*).
> 
> I wonder if I am the only one unhappy about this.
> In particular, has it ever been considered that it might be a good idea
> to limit the number of packages asdf creates?


Why?  Does FIND-PACKAGE use a linear algorithm to find the packages?

This apparent multiplication of packages is due to the absence of hierarchical 
package names (and, granted, a tendency to over-modularize the code).  But IMO, 
an implementation should be prepared to handle a big number of packages.  
Notably, use-package should be cheap, so packages used by a lot of other 
packages shouldn’t be costly either.
(On the other hand, FIND-SYMBOL in a package that uses a lot of other packages 
may be rather costly, either in time or in memory (cache)).

Note that users probably don’t use LIST-ALL-PACKAGES directly.  In my case, I 
use com.informatimago.common-lisp.interactive.interactive:lspack ; I’ve never 
felt the need to filter out the packages very strongly (it uses string-match-p 
to select package names containing an optional substring), but it would be 
trivial to add filters to exclude package names that have some hierarchical 
structure in them (“sub-packages” delimited with “/“ or “.”).

-- 
__Pascal J. Bourguignon__

package pollution by asdf

[Sam Steingold]

Hi,

When I start CLISP with the full linking set (i.e., including all
possible extensions), I have 63 packages in (list-all-packages), and 37
of them (more than half!) comes from asdf (22 ASDF/* and 15 UIOP/*).

I wonder if I am the only one unhappy about this.
In particular, has it ever been considered that it might be a good idea
to limit the number of packages asdf creates?

Thanks.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on darwin Ns 10.3.1561
http://steingoldpsychology.com http://www.childpsy.net http://www.memritv.org
http://www.dhimmitude.org http://honestreporting.com http://no2bds.org
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?