Doomed to obscurity. Look, I love Lisp like any other Lisper, but there is no proper Guile (let alone general Scheme) package manager, which means any Guile project will be be an uphill battle to maintain dependencies in. Oh well, at least it has a code of conduct, that has to count for something I guess?
The fact of the matter is that there is just too much good stuff for the frontend in the NPM ecosystem, so you are going to depend on it sooner or later anyway unless you have a really simple website. So you might as well depend on it fully. I'm in the process of migrating my website from my own home-made static site generator (written in Common Lisp) to Astro for that very reason. The NPM ecosystem is a leaning tower of hacks on top of hacks and adapters for adapters, but it gets the job done.
EDIT: I should also point out that on the frontend just making something work is not enough. There is all sorts of dark magic like bundling, minimizing and tree-shaking that you'll have to implement yourself. You can try if you want, but the tools in the NPM ecosystem already do all of that. Have fun re-inventing all of that, but I'm out.
> Output is too large: Disable unused breakpoints, variants, or colors in your build script.
So instead of using tailwind, which automatically strips unused CSS classes, here you're supposed to manually remove anything you think you might not need by editing lisp code?
Edit: I just took a look at one of the example projects listed, and sure enough it ships a 1 megabyte file called olive.min.css with every possible class:
This seems to be a misunderstanding by the author, a licence doesn't have to be copyleft to be free software. Even the FSF describes the MIT licence as a free software licence (they prefer calling it the Expat licence).
> Expat License (#Expat)
>
> This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
That's exactly what it says. There is a big fat in that row as if Tailwind were not Free Software because it is not Copyleft. If he wanted to point that out he could have used a separate row and written " (not copyleft though)" or something like that.
You're right, open source and free software are not the same thing, but software licenced under the MIT licence is still free software. Even the FSF describes the MIT licence as a free software licence (see my other reply in this thread).
Yeah I'm still not following the loaded premise of this question. It's just a table telling people what the project is about.
An MIT-licensed project trying to not scare people away might have the same comparison table in their readme. They'd just flip around the green checkmark and red X.
> written in Lisp (Guile Scheme)
Doomed to obscurity. Look, I love Lisp like any other Lisper, but there is no proper Guile (let alone general Scheme) package manager, which means any Guile project will be be an uphill battle to maintain dependencies in. Oh well, at least it has a code of conduct, that has to count for something I guess?
The fact of the matter is that there is just too much good stuff for the frontend in the NPM ecosystem, so you are going to depend on it sooner or later anyway unless you have a really simple website. So you might as well depend on it fully. I'm in the process of migrating my website from my own home-made static site generator (written in Common Lisp) to Astro for that very reason. The NPM ecosystem is a leaning tower of hacks on top of hacks and adapters for adapters, but it gets the job done.
EDIT: I should also point out that on the frontend just making something work is not enough. There is all sorts of dark magic like bundling, minimizing and tree-shaking that you'll have to implement yourself. You can try if you want, but the tools in the NPM ecosystem already do all of that. Have fun re-inventing all of that, but I'm out.
Gnu guix will solve all your guile scheme packaging needs and then some.
> Output is too large: Disable unused breakpoints, variants, or colors in your build script.
So instead of using tailwind, which automatically strips unused CSS classes, here you're supposed to manually remove anything you think you might not need by editing lisp code?
Edit: I just took a look at one of the example projects listed, and sure enough it ships a 1 megabyte file called olive.min.css with every possible class:
https://wikimusic.jointhefreeworld.org/css/wikimusic.olive.m...
It's also heavily duplicated, searching for "blur-md" yields 12 entries all with the same definition.
The comparison section says the MIT license is not "free" because it's not copyleft. How come is more permissive considered less free?
This seems to be a misunderstanding by the author, a licence doesn't have to be copyleft to be free software. Even the FSF describes the MIT licence as a free software licence (they prefer calling it the Expat licence).
> Expat License (#Expat) > > This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
That's not what it says.
It's a table comparing Olive to Vanilla. In the "feature" column there is a row for "Free Software".
It's not saying one is less free than the other. It's saying what you already know: MIT license is not copyleft.
> That's not what it says.
That's exactly what it says. There is a big fat in that row as if Tailwind were not Free Software because it is not Copyleft. If he wanted to point that out he could have used a separate row and written " (not copyleft though)" or something like that.
But it’s saying that tailwind isn’t free software because it is MIT licensed. Why doesn’t MIT license count as free software?
Because it's not Free Software™.
https://www.osweekly.com/free-software-vs-open-source-why-th...
You're right, open source and free software are not the same thing, but software licenced under the MIT licence is still free software. Even the FSF describes the MIT licence as a free software licence (see my other reply in this thread).
Yeah I'm still not following the loaded premise of this question. It's just a table telling people what the project is about.
An MIT-licensed project trying to not scare people away might have the same comparison table in their readme. They'd just flip around the green checkmark and red X.
[dead]