1. Standard library: the "general and popular" rule, aka #1
I'll be blunt: Please remove it.
If you check the discussion lists, both for ESL on SourceForge and here about
some include files, most recently math.e, you will notice that the main reason
why they stagnated and eventually died is the debate over what is generic and
what is "specific" or "rare", hence to be kept out in application of the "general
and popular" principle.
If someone has the minimalist urge and doesn't use something, s/he will post and
say in substance: Don't include this, I don't use it. Add a few like this, and
you come up with only a handful of additions to the current Eu distribution. At
this point, the purpose of the extension usually vanishes.
Look at most standard libraries in other languages. Perhaps there isn't a single
programmer in that language that ever used 80% of routines in the library. I'll
get flamed, but this not a liability, but, to the contrary, an asset. This is how
you get people to program, because they see some flesh they can already put in
their program, not just bare bones.
To put it otherwise, a stdlib is useful because one can find in it most
everything that might be standard for some subgroup of users. Your rule calls for
a greater common denominator. Eu is in its current shape largely because of this
error, repeated over time. Let's learn: what works is the lesser common multiple
instead.
My own alternative proposal would be: generic and useful in some known area of
programming.
CChris
2. Re: Standard library: the "general and popular" rule, aka #1
CChris wrote:
>
> I'll be blunt: Please remove it.
>
<snip>
I see where your coming from, but there has to be some breaking point, otherwise
we should just unzip the archive and put it all in euphoria/include? That may be
extreme, but I'm just trying to understand where you would put the breaking
point.
Now, when I am adding functions, I do compare to other languages libraries.
Mainly, Python, Java. NewLisp and I've consulted php as well.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
3. Re: Standard library: the "general and popular" rule, aka #1
- Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cowgar.c?m>
Apr 28, 2008
-
Last edited Apr 29, 2008
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> CChris wrote:
> >
> > I'll be blunt: Please remove it.
> >
>
I was thinking about this further and I think we have another problem and that
is documentation.
Right now documentation is broken out by groups, which is great. However, as we
add more and more functions, those groups get larger and larger. If we really
start adding a ton of functions, those groups are going to become very confusing
and your going to look at the function list and say which one should I use?
Maybe the general documentation should change and show the built-in routines.
Then have sections for each of the include/???.e files.
I'm just thinking aloud.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
