Re: [External] : Re: What's missing in ELisp that makes people want to use cl-lib?

[Po Lu]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> > There is no reason to require a 21 KB file for a six line
>> > function. None.
>> 
>> Yes, one: If that six line function is useful and is defined
>> in a readily available library of 21 KB.
>> 
>> Sure, one can break up that library do decrease its modules'
>> sizes, but this is up to the people at the library's side, not
>> the person writing code and using the library, because s/he is
>> using it as intended.

cl-lib was never meant to be used in such a carefree manner.

>> Especially if the library is readily available, like cl-lib,
>> there is no hesitation. If it has to be downloaded from the
>> web or by means of some package manager etc then the practical
>> reasons not to do it appear, so maybe it makes sense in one
>> sense, but isn't reasonable practically to do, for just
>> six lines.

I think that particular line is better drawn at "whether it is loaded
into /usr/bin/emacs" than at "whether it must be downloaded from the
Internet."  By which I mean the line governing whether we should resign
ourselves to its proliferation, not that governing whether its
proliferation is all that advantageous.

>> But again, that isn't the case with cl-lib. It is already
>> there and it is very easy to use to improve your code.
>> Even for a single file and a single use case, what would be
>> the reason no to do it?
>
> I agree with you - the logic there makes sense.
> That's what often happens.

It's not preloaded and makes for an alluring invitation for others to
produce more cryptic code with it, like virtually any caller of cl-loop,
as so vividly demonstrated by some other posters in this thread.