[racket-dev] proposal: `data' collection

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> On Jul  2, Robby Findler wrote:
>> Those numbers seem pretty small in today's disk sizes,
>
> Obviously -- but the issue is not diskspace.
>
> And Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> I feel like I routinely download programs and dev environments where
>> the distribution is over 100MBs.
>
>  winooski:~/mail eli> rpm -q --queryformat '%{SIZE} %{NAME}\n' tcl perl ghc js python ruby lua plt-scheme | sort -n
>  595769 lua
>  962834 js
>  1441553 ghc
>  1679403 ruby
>  3669827 tcl
>  22866733 python
>  35175610 perl
>  69558809 plt-scheme

Did you forget java and gcc?

:)

Robby

>
> Robby:
>> but I do agree that there is value in being able to divide up the
>> distribution and to be able to stratify things so we can better keep
>> track of our dependencies.
>
> Yes, that's exactly my point.
>
>> (BTW, just a random question: have you thought about trying to
>> visualize the collection-level dependencies with, say, dot?)
>
> I didn't get to that yet.  I suspect that it's not what Petey did: it
> should be a graph of dependencies between collections rather than
> modules.  Cycles there should be much more alarming IMO than looking
> at the module-level graph.
>
>
>> It seems like you're after something that would allow multiple
>> collections with the same name. Is that part of it, all of it, or
>> mostly irrelevant to your main issue?
>
> It is relevant, but inaccurate: what I'm after is a way to split
> "packages" below the collection level.  Without that, the only way to
> make an extensible `data' thing would be to have collections like
> `data-list', `data-stack', etc.  (I'm *not* suggesting that as a
> better alternative...)
>
> --
>          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!
>