I really honestly felt that this rebuttal was very unhelpful. I basically got from it:
This kind of response is just very practically a non-starter for most people. Maybe that means Lisp isn't the right tool for much of the world, like startups, then. Which advances my point, I think, in the original Quora post. (But I admit this thread is about package or system versioning, not the original Quora point.)

I wrote some stuff inline below.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Robert Smith <quad@symbo1ics.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The stance on packages found in the mentioned Quora post is based on the
>> old misconception about packages being modules, or "software packages" in
>> the Linux distribution sense. They're not. They are really just namespaces,
>> containers of symbols. So it does not make any sense, to me, that they have
>> versions. Software has versions, not names.
>


> Systems are what should get versioned but systems are not what are referred
> to by source files. Systems largely coordinate the compilation and loading
> of files. Source files generally have no notion of a system, actually, which
> may be what is ultimately problematic. Packages are referred to by source
> files, however. When I said packages, I meant it, and it was not a
> conflation with the notion of a system.
>
Why should source files know about systems?
Why should packages know about systems?

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. But the crappy packages-as-namespaces system isn't cutting it for large programs, and modules usually naturally have an associated namespace, but there's no formal correspondence between packages and systems. But more often than not there is an implicit association, judging by how most modern Common Lisp libraries are written. So maybe there's value in taking advantage of that correspondence.
 
> At the companies I have worked in, we rake in 100s of systems, which consist
> of n*100s of systems where n is the average number of packages per system.
> These version collisions happen enough, and we are lucky when they're not
> silent.
>
Was it in CL? Was it all in the same process? CL is not designed for
these kinds of things.


CL in the same process.

CL very clearly wasn't designed for a time where 100s of packages would be available and simultaneously usable.

But I'm not ready to concede and say "well, Lisp is only good for five or six massive packages or systems written by a few guys, like the good ol' days".
 
> Often enough, it's an extremely subtle issue that system A depends
> on {system B at time T1} and system C depends on {system B at time T2},
> where T1 and T2 correspond to different versions of system B, even if not
> explicitly labeled as such.
>
A and C are incompatible. You need to fix A, B and/or C.
The build system can record this incompatibility and issue an early error
when you try to build them together. It can't fix A, B and/or C for you.


A and C are incompatible only because of this whole thing we are talking about. Obviously they're incompatible. That's the whole problem. Saying "Fix A, B, C" is, to me, declaring that this whole thing isn't a problem, and the problem is library writers. Why can't A and C depend on whatever they want at some time? They of course can, but it's non-sense to think people will rename their namespaces every iteration of their software. That's just not how Lisp code has been written.
 
> Let's suppose we simplify the problem however and assume that B has been
> properly versioned in time, and systems A and C refer properly to the
> correct version of system B as a dependency. Even then, they will not be
> able to be simultaneously loaded in a functionally correct fashion. (They
> *can* both be loaded, but you'll do some clobbering of state along the way.)
>
No. The build system can error out and
tell you the easy way that you have to fix your bugs
before you discover it the hard way
 
The build system erroring would be a step above the status quo. But maybe there's not actually a logical error. We are only considering it an error because of the way packages work in Lisp, no?

> Whether we think about modules as systems or as packages or as whatever, the
> problem would need to be addressed at the package level, if we are not
> assuming that we can't synchronize the universe of people writing Common
> Lisp.
>
The packages have nothing to do with it, unless you fork B into B1 and B2
(or B1 and B, or B and B2).

> Overall, I'd summarize as this. Whether we have the technology in the Common
> Lisp ecosystem to accommodate this problem or not, it's my opinion and the
> opinion of many of my colleagues that there is a problem for development
> teams making extensive use of open and closed source code. There definitely
> is not a discipline that you see with other languages and their ecosystems
> (JS/npm, Clojure, etc.) about proper versioning of systems and furthermore
> proper loading of the proper versions. I don't think that's debatable. The
> closest we have to this solution is relying on the global nature of a
> particular Quicklisp distribution, but not all Lisp software is free and
> open source, and even software within Quicklisp has tons of implied version
> dependencies.
>
This is not a very Lisp-specific problem.
This is a problem with building software in general.
The correct approach is to fix incompatibilities,
not to try to deny their existence only to find out the hard way you can't.

Google Bazel provides a good way to deterministically build software
that follows the correct discipline. So does NixOS. There may be other
such tools. Use them.


I don't know much about Bazel, and I know a little about NixOS. Regardless, this seems to be moving the problem into how we globally synchronize our systems. 

I am absolutely boggled by this attitude. This is an issue that one runs into when writing Common Lisp code, and not an issue that one runs into writing in another language and associated ecosystem. To me, that's a Lisp problem. We can do some creative academic definitions, I think, but it's a problem when choosing Lisp as a tool.

I don't know. The original question I was answering was why Lisp isn't what we are all using today, and I think this weird thread serves as additional evidence.

Am I way off base here?

Cheers,

Robert