[racket-dev] proposal: `data' collection
Yeah, it was absurd. I'm not in the lab right now and I'm running late at the moment, but I can send it this weekend or early next week.
- Petey
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay McCarthy [mailto:jay.mccarthy at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 5:22 AM
To: Robby Findler
Cc: Eli Barzilay; dev at racket-lang.org; Petey Aldous
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] proposal: `data' collection
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> Those numbers seem pretty small in today's disk sizes, 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.
I feel like I routinely download programs and dev environments where
the distribution is over 100MBs.
> (BTW, just a random question: have you thought about
> trying to visualize the collection-level dependencies with, say, dot?)
My student did that. It is absurd. I'll CC him to get the image.
Jay
>
> 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?
>
> Robby
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>> [Sorry for the late reply.]
>>
>>
>> On Jun 30, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>> Which part is a symptom? My request for a description when there's
>>> no owner?
>>>
>>> The no-owner fact?
>>>
>>> The unstable collects?
>>
>> "All of the above."
>>
>> Here are some questions that can demonstrate the problem better:
>>
>> 1. What text would you expect to find in the "purpose.txt" file of
>> `unstable'? Of `data'?
>>
>> 2. My course code is installed in a local collection named `pl'. Why
>> would I need to rename it if a new `pl' module was added to the
>> racket distribution?
>>
>> 3. Say that you want to install apache on your machine. What would
>> you think if your OS tells you that you need to install powerpoint
>> for that?
>>
>> 4. Assuming that there is a `data' collection with a few known data
>> structures implemented, what happens when there's another data
>> structure that happens to be just the thing for some project X
>> and otherwise it's not too useful, or at least it seems that way.
>> Why can't project X come with a new data/foo module?
>>
>> In any case, keep in mind that there is another way to make me stop
>> saying "coherent" and "package" -- give up the idea of ever getting a
>> smaller racket distribution, and the problem is solved. We won't even
>> need the distribution specs, since everything will be included...
>> (From my POV, this would work out great since it looks like the
>> general attitude towards it is that it's just something that *I*
>> choose to be concerned with, and otherwise there's no problems.)
>>
>> For reference, here's a table of installer sizes (the Windows one,
>> which has the highest compression) and source bundle size (the unix
>> one, which has the highest compression in the sources bundles), with
>> roughly one representative per year:
>>
>> bin src
>> ver year size size
>> --- ---- ---- ----
>> 53 1998 2.6M
>> 103 2000 3.4M 4.6M
>> 200 2001 4.3M 6.7M
>> 203 2002 4.8M 6.0M
>> 205 2003 5.8M 7.6M
>> 209 2004 8.4M 11M
>> 300 2005 12M 13M
>> 372 2007 14M 15M
>> 4.0 2008 22M 14M
>> 4.2 2009 25M 15M
>> 5.0 2010 28M 16M
>>
>> --
>> ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
>> http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
>> _________________________________________________
>> For list-related administrative tasks:
>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>>
> _________________________________________________
> For list-related administrative tasks:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
--
Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
http://teammccarthy.org/jay
"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93