Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?

[John Cowan]

felix winkelmann scripsit:

> > I agree, which is why I support the idea of a compound unit.  Convenience
> > isn't always the predominant concern, though, especially when it comes
> > to deployment, particularly deployment as C source (regrettable though
> > that is).
> 
> Reducing the number of core libraries will make deployment actually
> easier. Can you be more specific?

I recognize the validity of ease-of-use concerns; I simply ask you to
recognize that there are other concerns.  Some years back, I wrote a Joy
implementation that was meant to be delivered to users in C form as a
few C files, including extras.c.  I complained about the size of these,
and you very nicely pulled the relevant routines out of extras.scm for
me and put them into joy.scm.

*That's* the concern I wish to have addressed.  A statically linked
executable ought not to contain dead code; dead code is untested code
and unsecured code.  I realize that this goal is not fully achievable,
but I think it's worth attempting, *particularly* if a simple mechanism is
also available for those who care about ease of use more (which certainly
includes me, in some roles and moods).

-- 
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
        --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
                John Cowan <address@hidden>