[racket] Complexity Failure: Third Attempt, Third Time Fail

Vents are welcome. I definitely agree with "creating a library, documenting it, publishing it should be drop dead simple and just work. And it probably does, for simple things, if you're careful" and I think we need to work on this step. BUT, are you sure you want to publish the library on PLaneT not as a package? 

When/if you figure out what our 40% share of problems are, please post them here. We would very much appreciate it. Thanks -- Matthias





On May 27, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Ray Racine wrote:

> Well today was I'd say my was third attempt to refactor an accumulation of code into some sort of structure, create documentation, clean raco setup  and Planet publication.  Third time fail.  And fail badly.
> 
> Granted say +60% is on me, but ... some stuff should just work.
> 
> In my opinion the combinatorial explosion of Racket features intersecting with a lacking in modularity pile of functionality results in robustness failure where facets are coming together.[1]  
> 
> Creating a library, documenting it, publishing it should be drop dead simple and just work. And it probably does, for simple things, if you're careful.  Probably.
> 
> So ... I'm devoting the rest of the week, all of it, to isolating and submitting core bread and butter bugs that are stymieing that goal until the process works smoothly, without kludges, hacks, compromises and work-arounds.
> 
> I'm going to start with hunting down one that's been happening for long while now, what are the conditions that cause a simple 'require' to fail and why for the love of god does the compiler refuse to tell you where the require was and which module was requiring it?
> 
> I love haystack diving and recursive grepping 10,000 lines of code in search of what causes a simple require resolve error as much as anyone, but sometimes you just want the darn compiler to cut you some slack and tell you a) the error specifics in an intelligible manner b) the source line that caused it, thank you very much.
> 
> Don't get me wrong there is so much amazing stuff in Racket.   I can't think of a single substantive programming paradigm not contained in Racket or any aspect of the development process not attempted by Racket, all engineered to the nth ... yet, I think the philosopher Bilbo Baggins said it best, “Racket feels thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.” 
> 
> Sorry for the vent ...
> 
> Ray
> 
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month#Conceptual_integrity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________
>  Racket Users list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20130528/97c95a63/attachment-0001.html>