Re: Using an alternative python to build python modules

[Kyle Andrews]

Kyle Andrews <kyle@posteo.net> writes:

> Kyle Andrews <kyle@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> There seems to be some secret Guile incantation I am overlooking. Could
>> you give me a hint of what this could be?
>
> Tobias pointed out to me that the Guile developers could be to blame
> here. They appear a bit too preoccupied with prematurely optimizing the
> speed of code with the result that it has already been made inaccessible
> before users have a fighting chance to interactively study it to
> understand how it works.
>
> The workflow described in the Guile manual seems like it would be
> perfect. It suggests I should be able to just modify the source code and
> reload it into the running environment. Unfortunately, I don't know how
> to associate my running environment via the Guix REPL with my git
> checkout.

Reading a few hours later I apologize that I came off a bit harshly. I
am grateful to guile writers for sharing their work. I appreciate that
it is a challenging task making a computing system which is approachable
while also being fast when it needs to be. There will always be some
room left for additional improvement.

I am starting to feel intense pressure to move on to my next project. My
colleagues just don't get it. I do, and I really really want to show
them that reproducible research can be done without much trouble even
for scientific workflows mixing R and python packages and scripts, which
are probably the most complex workflows "in the wild" in my neck of the
woods. So, even if they don't get it yet, they might in a few months
when their projects break as the software ecosystem moves on to the next
fad. It always does.

>From a broader perspective, sometimes the only way for people to get
things is if they see a lot of pressure from other peers in their field
to do it. If it is perceived as a "go do" and not as an arduous journey
with a realistic prospect of failure, then it will get done. I want to
make sure it's the former. To that end, I want there to be an entry in
the cookbook for this. I just sent a patch outlining my ideas for what
the scope should be.

Of course, since I can't actually figure it out yet, it's more of a
draft at present. Honestly, I couldn't get my poor ancient laptop to
even finish compiling the inferior - much less try using that inferior
with your package-with-explicit-python. I'm just wishing that this
approach will work in the near future. So, please don't let anyone
include it yet :)