On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Michael Hudson wrote:
... Perhaps I should have been more clear: I am in absolute agreement that it must be possible to be able to use distutils very simply. However it is my contention that it should also be extremely flexible, becuase if you want to do something a little bit unusual you should be able to do it without abandoning the advantages of distutils. I do not believe these aims are incompatible.
Here is where I'll state "we'll agree to disagree."
I have yet to find something that is "easy to use, yet flexible enough for whatever you may need to do." Nobody ever does this well, and I further believe that Python's rapid development capability obsoletes the notion of trying to do everything in one package (since it is so easy to write/extend with new code). In fact, your Guile quote kind of supports what I'm trying to say: systems that have tried to encompass every need end up big-and-ugly; therefore, I would maintain that you should *not* attempt to be all-encompassing.
I'd rather see a bare-ass simple mechanism that solves the 80% case and tell the other 20% to go write their own (I might actually use stronger terms for those 20% people :-). Anybody can figure out bare-ass simple and use it. They can also figure out how to extend it for their particularly whacky situation.
But... IMO... and I don't expect others to share that view or to code that view :-)