productivity/wyrd (remove?)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

productivity/wyrd (remove?)

Okan Demirmen
Hi,

Quick poll - anyone want to take this? It's dead upstream for the past
few years and I have no interest in it either, especially the way
ocaml is moving.

Removing is the idea otherwise.

Thanks,
Okan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: productivity/wyrd (remove?)

Daniel Dickman


> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Okan Demirmen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Quick poll - anyone want to take this? It's dead upstream for the past
> few years and I have no interest in it either, especially the way
> ocaml is moving.
>
> Removing is the idea otherwise.
>
> Thanks,
> Okan
>

removing sounds like a good idea, as you say "especially given the way ocaml is moving".

surprised ken hasn't already axed this one yet.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: productivity/wyrd (remove?)

Jeremie Courreges-Anglas-2
Daniel Dickman <[hidden email]> writes:

>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Okan Demirmen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Quick poll - anyone want to take this? It's dead upstream for the past
>> few years and I have no interest in it either, especially the way
>> ocaml is moving.
>>
>> Removing is the idea otherwise.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Okan
>>
>
> removing sounds like a good idea, as you say "especially given the way ocaml is moving".
>
> surprised ken hasn't already axed this one yet.

Just to chime in about this one:  I have no problem with
productivity/wyrd going away, but this generic statement:

  "especially given the way ocaml is moving"

bugs me.  A port written in OCaml will likely depend on OCaml libraries.
The fact that those libraries can be installed through opam doesn't mean
that we should remove the port and the aforementioned libraries.

--
jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: productivity/wyrd (remove?)

kwesterback


> On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Daniel Dickman <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Okan Demirmen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Quick poll - anyone want to take this? It's dead upstream for the past
>>> few years and I have no interest in it either, especially the way
>>> ocaml is moving.
>>>
>>> Removing is the idea otherwise.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Okan
>>>
>>
>> removing sounds like a good idea, as you say "especially given the way ocaml is moving".
>>
>> surprised ken hasn't already axed this one yet.
>
> Just to chime in about this one:  I have no problem with
> productivity/wyrd going away, but this generic statement:
>
>  "especially given the way ocaml is moving"
>
> bugs me.  A port written in OCaml will likely depend on OCaml libraries.
> The fact that those libraries can be installed through opam doesn't mean
> that we should remove the port and the aforementioned libraries.

Exactly. My goal is only to remove unused libraries, libraries that make it hard to use modern ocaml programming tools and intermediate ports. NOT any end-user ports and the libraries they use.

If wyrd is being used then I have no desire to remove it.

I took "the way ocaml is moving" to be a comment on ocaml language and ecosystem changes that made wyrd harder to keep running since it died upstream.

.... Ken

>
> --
> jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: productivity/wyrd (remove?)

Okan Demirmen
On Tue 2017.03.21 at 12:22 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:

>
>
> > On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Dickman <[hidden email]> writes:
> >
> >>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Okan Demirmen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Quick poll - anyone want to take this? It's dead upstream for the past
> >>> few years and I have no interest in it either, especially the way
> >>> ocaml is moving.
> >>>
> >>> Removing is the idea otherwise.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Okan
> >>>
> >>
> >> removing sounds like a good idea, as you say "especially given the way ocaml is moving".
> >>
> >> surprised ken hasn't already axed this one yet.
> >
> > Just to chime in about this one:  I have no problem with
> > productivity/wyrd going away, but this generic statement:
> >
> >  "especially given the way ocaml is moving"
> >
> > bugs me.  A port written in OCaml will likely depend on OCaml libraries.
> > The fact that those libraries can be installed through opam doesn't mean
> > that we should remove the port and the aforementioned libraries.
>
> Exactly. My goal is only to remove unused libraries, libraries that make it hard to use modern ocaml programming tools and intermediate ports. NOT any end-user ports and the libraries they use.
>
> If wyrd is being used then I have no desire to remove it.
>
> I took "the way ocaml is moving" to be a comment on ocaml language and ecosystem changes that made wyrd harder to keep running since it died upstream.

Yes, I was off-base there in where I was going. Really wyrd is going nowhere
and that's the only point I meant to make.