On 18.04.2009, at 12:15, John Newman wrote: > 2) One way to maintain Clojure's flexibility would be if it were > like what the kernel is to a Linux distribution. What if every > distribution had to use the same standard set of packages? The > Linux ecosystem is much richer today because the kernel can develop > somewhat independently of the applications that target it.
True, but there is still a standard set of packages (or rather functionalities) that all but the most specialized Linux distributions contain and that everybody expects to find in a "normal" Linux distribution. Things like the shell, ls, rm, etc. > One way to compensate for a lack of "batteries included" might be a > powerful, agnostic library management solution, which allows for > different contrib libraries, VMs, or architectures, but that > definitely seems like a 2.0 feature. That sounds like a lot of work, and it won't take care of one important contribution of a standard library: standardization for basic, well-understood tasks. It's no fun to program in an environment where there are three competing libraries for parsing HTML that differ only in function names and parameter order. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
