[racket-dev] Adding the new plot library [was: Re: Plot?]

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Thu Sep 29 14:12:17 EDT 2011

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> 6 hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>> > Yesterday, Neil Toronto wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Obviously, Module 2's path should be 'plot'. Right? And its
>> >> documentation needs a note that it's deprecated. (I'll do that.)
>> >
>> > I don't know if it's that important, maybe poll the users list for
>> > potential code that uses it?  If it is, then given that it's a
>> > complete reimplementation, I think that it's fine to go with some
>> > `plot/compat' or something like that -- it forces users who have
>> > code to change files, but my guess is that most people used it
>> > just to try stuff out in quick scripts, and on the other side you
>> > have Doug who is deep enough into it that he'll most likely need
>> > to change code anyway.
>> I don't think we should do that. And certainly not without a release
>> or two of warning.
> Do you know of any actual code that uses it?

My personal knowledge of code that uses it (or yours) is a BAD way to
make this kind of decision.

> The thing is that keeping things completely backward compatible means
> keeping some C code (the fit thing), and that translates to a real
> problem with linux distributions (see the Fedora point earlier).  Not
> being completely backward compatible has the advantage of moving at
> least the Fedora distribution faster (and I won't be surprised if
> Debian/Ubuntu would have issues with this too -- I'm surprised they
> didn't say anything about it so far).

I don't think that what I said implies this. A compatibility layer
using Neil's new library is what was offered (or so I thought). I
think we just want something that has the same Racket-level UI and
something reasonably close in the pictures you get out, as discussed

> To get that advantage, things will not be completely backward
> compatible anyway, and in that case a change from `plot' to
> `plot/compat' is a small price, IMO smaller than the benefit of
> getting happy linux packages.

I remain unconvinced.


Posted on the dev mailing list.