Re: wither ASDF

I'll preface my comments with the remark that I've fooled around with asdf while working on ASDF-Literate (http://bzflag.bz/~starseeker/asdf-literate.pdf), but am not an expert the way most of the folks here are so I may be a bit "behind the times".

--- On Wed, 1/14/09, Gary King <[email protected]> wrote:

> Questions (or perhaps vague musings) that I have from time
> to time are:
> 
> * What is ASDF?

To me, it is "make within Lisp" - it lets me manage discrete components and build (and rebuild) them all automatically, in a Lispy way.  Bliss.
 
> * how does ASDF related to SBCL? Is there a special
>   relationship? Is  it more special than it needs to be?

I'm assuming this could only be due to the desire to use SBCL-specific features not part of the ANSI spec?  I used to be of the opinion that this would be a Bad Thing, particularly for ASDF.  I guess I still lean that way, but as things like SBCL on Windows look more and more viable my willingness to give up nice SBCL specific goodies and the features that can be built on them is weakening.  

For a proper response, I guess the first thing to ask is "how does/would ASDF benefit from a special relationship with SBCL?"

> * who pushes ASDF forward and in what direction?

Seems to be an "as needed" process when folks hit features they would like to have.  The plethora of add-ons to the basic ASDF functionality suggest that to me, at least.

> * how do we get ASDF to be included in all Lisp
>   distributions?

That's a policy decision on the part of each distribution.  The real answer is probably to get the ANSI Common Lisp spec updated to include ASDF - unfortunately that would involve re-building the teams officially able to do so, and that's probably not happening any time soon (takes $$ to play).

> * how do we make ASDF better?

I'd say a concrete set of desired features and a central way to manage them would help - this inclines me to vote for a c-l.net project just for ASDF.  IMHO it is certainly important enough to rate its own project.

It might be heresy to mention it here, but what does the ASDF crowd think about XCVB?  Is it the "next generation" of ASDF?  Does it make design decisions unacceptable to ASDF users?  Does it have good ideas?  Perhaps a viable direction would be to ensure it can handle everything ASDF currently does?

> * how does ASDF relate to ASDF-Install and what about these
>   new-fangled kids like mudballs, cl-build, and so on.

I view ASDF as being strictly inside the Lisp world.  From what I can tell, cl-build at least is solving a somewhat different problem.  It's a core problem whenever considering doing a "stand alone" application in Lisp - the build process and configuration information (plus little things like required external downloads) can't be assumed in most cases. 

I admit I don't make use of ASDF-INSTALL, so I'm not qualified to comment on it specifically.

> * Who wants to lead ASDF development (and who has the time!)

Is that a request for volunteers? ;-)  I'd say someone who uses it regularly and wants to see improvements to it would be a logical choice, but if you're asking for specific names I'm not much help (although I will say I'm impressed by tools like Lift, asdf-binary-locations, etc... *cough* :-)

> * Is ASDF maintenance a democracy, an oligarchy or a
>   monarchy (and, in every case, who is doing the directing?)

Um... a herd of cats, if you count extensions? ;-)  

> For the last few years, ASDF has been stable (but perhaps
> too stable).  There are a lot of directions it could go.

For my part, if ASDF is to grow, I would like to see two things in the short term:

1.  Merging in functionality from extensions that is not platform specific and is generally useful into the main ASDF tool.

2.  Getting a central "Using ASDF" manual that is kept up to date as new features are merged in, so people know what is there, how to use it, and why it's good.  Again, this would probably be helped quite a lot by a c-l.net home.

> IMHO, ASDF should not change greatly but should keep
> improving around the edges. I'll try to write up a list of ideas for
> ASDF later tonight or tomorrow. Maybe that could be used for discussion?

Sounds good.

> Other thoughts and reaction welcome.

The two things that popped into my head right off were "is there anything about XCVB that's worth a look" and "can/should some of the extensions become part of the default package"?  

Cheers,
CY


      

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword