Re: Loading Guile `Extensions'

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> Basically, didn't want the module system to autoload shared libraries
> any longer.  We felt that that would be too smart and wanted to put
> the user more into control.  We also didn't want to have too much
> explicit module system operations in C.  That resulted in the
> recommendation to implement the module skeletons in Scheme and use
> explicit dynamic-call/dynamic-link to fill them with bindings.

And let me say as both a producer and consumer wrt this issue, I'm all
in favor of the way things have been moving.  Learning the old way was
definitely harder than it had to be and IMO was trying to be a little
too smart for my own good :>

> Well, I don't think I really need to defend the recent cleanups with
> their assorted API changes here.  The real problems arise when these
> cleanups are uncoordinated and lead to gratuitous changes that are
> hard to understand.  We must try hard to follow a clear and straight
> line when changing the API of Guile.  I'm not saying we are very
> good at that, but I hope we are at least acceptable.

>From the perspective of long-time peripheral observer, but
code-contribution newcomer, I pretty much expected that the next
couple of releases might be relatively tumultuous.  I tend to feel
like guile has a lot of really great technology and a lot of
potential, but until recently, it hasn't had a focused attempt to
really "keep it on track".  IMO much of what needs doing the most is
not so much inventing some new super-clever thing we don't have, but
is more just a matter taking all the great stuff we do have, cleaning
it up to make it more consistent, integrating it tightly, documenting
it well, and improving its performance.

We really do have nearly *all* the tools to let people create some
amazingly cool apps, we just have to make a lot of these things more
accessable, and advertize them better.  Fortunately, it seems like
we're in the process of doing just that.

For example, now that we have safe environments and goops, we should
be able to show off some *really* stunning half-page servers :>

> Should we un-deprecate `id'?

IMO, no, but we can be very lenient in how soon we actually remove it.

-- 
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930