<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "> <div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>This is not rambling, this is a fair analysis of our negligence to pay proper attention to PLaneT during the transition. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Please don't give up yet. We'll be back soon -- Matthias</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><br><div><div>On Mar 1, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Doug Williams wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">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?]<br> 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.<br> 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.<br> <br>Sorry for rambling,<br>Doug<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Eric Hanchrow <<a href="mailto:offby1@blarg.net">offby1@blarg.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Do you suppose the PLaneT web site could tell us if a given .plt package<br> requires PLT v4 as opposed to v3? I ask because, in the last few days,<br> a new package showed up (sorry, I can't remember which), and it only<br> worked with v4, but I had to discover that fact by trial and error.<br> <font color="#888888">--<br> Don't fall into the trap of writing everything as though it<br> were a cell phone text message.<br> -- Karl Fogel, "Producing Open Souce Software"<br> _________________________________________________<br> For list-related administrative tasks:<br> <a href="http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme" target="_blank">http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme</a><br> </font></blockquote></div><br><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">_________________________________________________</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>For list-related administrative tasks:</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme">http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme</a></div> </blockquote></div><br></body></html>