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

[felix winkelmann]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John Cowan<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> True, but it is helpful for stand-alone applications that don't want
> to carry around unnecessary cruft.  It's true that you can copy the
> source code out of the unit to do this, but that's a gross violation
> of encapsulation.

Actual use and what I see in the code of others suggests to me that
every non-trivial application ends up with using nearly all units. I am a
friend of modularization, but not modularization for modularizations'
sake.

What I like is convenience: banging together code for quick jobs with
as little effort as possible. The core libraries are not small, but
not really that big, as compared
to, say, Common Lisp.

>> Is it ok to make this change, or does somebody see a problem with this?
>
> While we're at it, how about finishing the job with "extras"?  It now has
> three parts which have little connection.  If we break it up into units
> "format", "random", and "ioext", that should help application writers
> who want to use just one of these.

I wonder how this "helps". It just increases the mental effort to scrape
together the necessary import statements.

>
>> [*] a lame name - any suggestions are welcome
>
> How about "roaster" (a U.S. term for a large chicken suitable for
> roasting, typically over 2 kg)?
>

You're not serious...


cheers,
felix