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

Just now, Robby Findler wrote:
> 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.

I suggested polling the list.  (Grepping the planet code would be
useful too, but not enough.)


> > 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
> earlier.

If it's just that layer (rather than keeping the C code in), then it's
not completely compatible anyway.  (And I don't see a point in keeping
a "strict" backward compatibility if it's not strict anyway.)

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!