I totally understand the concern but I think that it’s well within reason that your analogy overstates the issue. I haven’t given it all that much thought, but to me it seems reasonable that there are enough different use cases that are similar enough to still get a net benefit from a shared language. How much of this language fragmentation is just a reflection of Linux ecosystem fragmentation as opposed to e.g. “the right tool for each job”? I’d bet a fair bit.

Guile is not C, the stdlib is small and it can be adapted for any task. The difference using s-exp everywhere instead of an algol like language.

> But I can't begin to imagine the number of compromises or additional complexities you introduce this way.

So can you be more specific about the kind of compromises you have in mind and whether they are currently affecting Guix?

> "We are using exclusively 17 mm bolts for fasteners." Sure, it saves you time with finding a wrench. But I can't begin to imagine the number of compromises or additional complexities you introduce this way.

I spend 10 hrs a week under cars, and i say, hell yeah! I want this! For all cars!

You want to use 17 mm bolts to hold your fuel cap on? And your wiper blades? And your rear view mirror?

Some standardization is a great idea, but including the word "all" is what makes it academic and impractical. And if you're not going to be absolutist about it, then you're just using marketspeak.

Yes, i do! At least that all of their heads are 17, IMHO a pretty good and already common size.

Not sure if you chose 17mm on purpose but the tolerances on most sockets and wrenches make 17mm and SAE 11/16" sizes nearly interchangeable.

I would say that software is meant to be chopped up and glued together much more flexibly than the parts of a car. It is more like saying "all LEGO pieces have studs 5mm apart center to center".