Re: use-package & name conflict: why they are not deferred?

On 2008-10-30, budden <budden01@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good time of day Group...
I tried to implement what I wanted. Faced to difficulties that seem
to be impossible to solve:
1. No use of the feature without editor change. Not all editors are
available with sources.
2. Some low-level changes are required which go beyond flexibility
suggested by CL. E.g., I need to redefine intern and/or find-symbol.
But if they're inlined somewhere, it will fail.
Rainer, you were right when you adviced me not to fight the
language: language is stronger than me and I can't win and change it
to what I want. It is rather strange for a language whose main
advantage is its flexibility and extensibility...
So, maybe CL will be kept in my practice as a platform, but not as
an "end-user" language. Maybe I'll try to develop my own language with
lisp flaws fixed.

I side with Kenny's observation that you are a nutjob.

Earlier in the thread, you made two claims. One is that you value your time,
which is great:

``I'm not fighting the language, I only finding a way to code
efficiently. Time=money. Efficiency=more free time. ''

But earlier, you identified it as a waste of your precious time and money to be
resolve some package use conflicts. But suddenly it's okay for you to waste
your time and money to write a whole new language to work around this perceived
problem. You're kidding, right?

The second claim you made is that most time in a large and complex project is
spent reading code:

``1 human writes code
2 human reads code
...

I think in most sufficiently complex projects, item 2 will take most
of the time and cost ...''

But the activity of preparing a conflict-free package composition is writing
code, not reading.

You're internally inconsistent with yourself, again. You regard code reading as
being the primary expense, rather than writing, yet you want to increase the
difficulty of reading for a small saving in writing.

If you don't eliminate symbol clashes at the point where packages are composed,
programmers will have to use explicit qualification elsewhere, which is ugly
and less readable.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SCWC 32: Discussion: IMPLEMENT
    ... Language is not writing. ... If writing is a representation of speech, ... Chinese, a right to left reading such as Arabic, or Greek or Cyrillic ...
    (rec.puzzles.crosswords)
  • Re: SCWC 32: Discussion: IMPLEMENT
    ... Latin to English, such as "don't split infinitives" or "don't use ... language can be changed deliberately. ... I've got two books by Roy Harris that I ... must get around to reading. ...
    (rec.puzzles.crosswords)
  • "Ummi": illiterate or gentile?
    ... illiterate since certainly not all of the people of the prophet could ... while this is a clarifying Arabic language. ... while the great reading is in Arabic. ... of religion in England was Latin. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: colour languages - maybe hair brained! :)
    ... even when reading, writing, etc. ... Maybe pictures or colours. ... reading or writing visually isn't limited to colours. ... Metaphor is central for language and memory. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: SCWC 32: Discussion: IMPLEMENT
    ... Language is not writing. ... Writing and reading are clearly and obviously two facets of ... speech is unavailable; it is not speech, nor is it a 'recording' of ...
    (rec.puzzles.crosswords)
Loading