[Mono-list] Compiling egg-chicken libraries

max aranym@adelphia.net
Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:44:54 -0800


I know this is a little old, but this email just got in my mailbox, and as 
such is always worth some attention.

On Tuesday 16 March 2004 20:27, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 26-Feb-2004, Ben Maurer <05mauben@hawken.edu> wrote:
> > Max is right here. Chicken/Egg is a design problem.
> No, Max is wrong.  All other things being equal, designs that
> do not involve mutual recursion are preferable to designs that do,
> but mutual recursion is not in and of itself a design problem per se.

I will just say a few things: give me a few examples of awesome programs using 
mutual recursion libraries that are not suffering design issues, and you'll 
get my credit. If you pull out from your hard drives some odd program that 
nobody uses or even cares just to prove a point, then you will in my opinion 
just have proven the opposite. If very few people are using certain types of 
design, there's a reason for it.

The original point is about chicken/egg library references. It still is and 
remains a design issue. It should pull a trigger in the developer's mind that 
maybe some functions should be part of the same base library.

Last point: it's always easy to find a complicated way to do things. It's 
always a nightmare to make them simple and straightforward. It's not a rule, 
it's just a fact. chicken and egg libaries are very easy to create, and make 
things so complicated for other developers to take on the work. waste of 
time. period.