> simple and sustainable is a key to survival. In asdf I see the
> accumulation of complexity with no end. That is bad generally.
old ASDF was broken in countless ways, and i've experienced the bugs
in my everyday activities.
the question is whether ASDF has any accidental complexity, i.e.
> The shims idea is interesting, but isn't it a lot of trouble to make and
> maintain a shim (which has to somehow indicate where to find the source files
> for the library), compared to forking a system?
+1
there's already the sharplispers group for taking over unmaintained
systems (not to be
On 19 Feb 2019, at 1:18, 73budden wrote:
Hi!
Every time I read "asdf", I feel a pain. I've read that there is an
attempt to gain resources to improve asdf. I have a sort of plan.
1. Shims. Recent tightening of rules for system definitions is ok, but
there are old systems with no maintainers.
Hi!
Every time I read "asdf", I feel a pain. I've read that there is an
attempt to gain resources to improve asdf. I have a sort of plan.
1. Shims. Recent tightening of rules for system definitions is ok, but
there are old systems with no maintainers. If such system does not
obey the rules, one
