On 13.05.2009, at 00:04, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
> Now that Clojure 1.0 is out, I think it's a good time to take a
> look at
> contrib. I noticed it didn't get an official 1.0 release along with
> Clojure core. I wonder if this is because its role is just not very
> well-defined. Several people have expressed this opinion here on the
> mailing list and on IRC.
I'd say the real question is not "what is contrib?" but "what kind of
library system should Clojure have?"
I think that it is clear to most of us that contrib started as
something which it isn't any more. At the moment, it's a bucket of
code whose only common point is the licence, which allows it to be
distributed under exactly the same terms as Clojure itself, whatever
those may become.
As I have said before, I strongly believe that Clojure should have a
standard library. Contrib could then become the staging ground for
both code and the standard library. But the important question is
about the standard library, not about the fate of contrib.
Alternatively, we could also envisage something like the Haskell
platform:
http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/
This is a collection of separately written libraries distributed as a
single package with a single installation procedure. I think an
officially labelled and maintained standard library is important, but
there could well be a collection of independent (and differently
licenced) libraries on top of that.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
