[plt-scheme] PLanet should indicate which PLT version is required

From: Doug Williams (m.douglas.williams at gmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 1 21:40:19 EST 2008

I have no intention of giving up.  I think you guys are doing a great job in
improving the implementation and the language.  I can attest to the fact
that for large, numerically intensive applications, which describes what I
am primarily using it for, 3.99.0.x is faster and is actually more stable
for these type of problems because it fixes a specific bug I was having.
The lack of separate v3 and v4 PLaneT repositories (or some other mechanism
that achieves the same effect) is my only complaint.


On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu>

> This is not rambling, this is a fair analysis of our negligence to pay
> proper attention to PLaneT during the transition.
> Please don't give up yet. We'll be back soon -- Matthias
> On Mar 1, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Doug Williams wrote:
> This is a still a real problem.  I personally am not updating my packages
> on PLaneT with anything that is not compatible with v3 because I have people
> outside this core community using them is a semi-production setting and they
> are using the released version of DrScheme.  I am reluctant to push them -
> and in some cases I don't even know who they are - to upgrade to v4 because
> it is still pre-release software.  [However, some of them need to upgrade to
> v4 because it fixes a major problem in v372 with large memory footprint
> programs.  BTW, Matthew, would it be possible to make a patch to v372 with
> the 'ephemeral' object change you made to help DrScheme memory usage?]
> I've worked hard to get PLT Scheme accepted as an analysis tool on some of
> the (distributed, multi-organization) projects I'm working on.  Most had
> been using Matlab or Python.  [I'll probably never win over the hardcore
> Matlab users, but the Python users are a different story.]  But, we're at
> the weird juncture between versions and I don't think it's being handled in
> a way that is particular beneficial to the end users of the system - i.e.
> users of systems developed in PLT Scheme as opposed to users of PLT Scheme
> itself.
> I know there is reluctance to do so, but we really need separate v3 and v4
> PLaneT repositories.  One major advantage of v4, alluded to above, is that I
> can actually run large analysis programs more than a couple times without
> crashing - and they run faster.  [Of course if that were the only advantage
> there would be no v4, just a patched v3.]  Obviously, v3 has the advantage
> of stability - and all of my packages run there.  Being able to ensure that
> end users can reliably run code with PLaneT packages in either v3 or v4 is
> very important.
> Sorry for rambling,
> Doug
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Eric Hanchrow <offby1 at blarg.net> wrote:
> > Do you suppose the PLaneT web site could tell us if a given .plt package
> > requires PLT v4 as opposed to v3?  I ask because, in the last few days,
> > a new package showed up (sorry, I can't remember which), and it only
> > worked with v4, but I had to discover that fact by trial and error.
> > --
> > Don't fall into the trap of writing everything as though it
> > were a cell phone text message.
> >        -- Karl Fogel, "Producing Open Souce Software"
> > _________________________________________________
> >  For list-related administrative tasks:
> >  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> >
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20080301/8e3bebb2/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.