[racket-dev] new package system collections and conflicts

Thanks for being with with us for so long. 

I think you misunderstood the word 'charity' here and perhaps Jay could have used a different, a more appropriate word than 'charity', which I now realize can have a negative connotation. 

Otherwise, I think that the package system design is about reducing power for core developers so that we put ourselves into the position of contributors. Our hope is that this step will eventually improve the overall social/eco system surrounding Racket. Please stay with us, and please do give constructive feedback. The most constructive feedback is of the form "I would like to solve the problem ... describe problem ..". 

We have been thinking for a long, long time about breaking up the core so that more people can become "core" and we realize that this is a nontrivial step. We need your helps and everyone's help. 


Thanks! -- Matthias







On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Neil Van Dyke <neil at neilvandyke.org> wrote:

> I don't think I need charity.
> 
> I thought the vision for the new package system had already been explained adequately.  I would be very interested to learn how the model is well-suited to third-party developers like me.
> 
> But -- I mean this constructively -- I'd be happy if someone simply came out and said "this model is great for core developers, we still have to figure out everyone else, and maybe the model isn't great for everyone else".  The reason is that I've looked at the new package system seriously 5-6 times since it was announced, and I keep being told that the model is intended for non-core people like me, and that someone else knows my needs better than me.  Open source reuse was an especial area of interest to me, the package system is very important, and I've given the benefit of the doubt 5-6 times now.  (This has actually stalled most of my public Racket work, one way or another, for about 2 years.)
> 
> I'm not harshing on Racket; just on how the new package system was sprung on non-core people, and the narrative.  It doesn't look typical of Racket.  Racket is usually in the position that it could say "we have a better idea" (on, e.g., module system sophistication, various syntax extension mechanisms and mixed languages support, various aspects of DrRacket, the related pedagogic projects, etc.), and usually that doesn't have to be said, because the superiority of Racket is immediately apparent.  That's why I've been a Racketeer for 13 years and counting.
> 
> Neil V.
> 
> _________________________
> Racket Developers list:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev