Viewing profile — tonsky

Maven's version resolution mechanism determines which version of a dependency to use when multiple versions are specified in a project's dependency tree. Here's how it works: - Nea…

> I’d love to lock my library to numpy 2.3.4, but if the developers of another library pin theirs to 2.3.5 then game over. Why? Can’t you specify which version to use?

> would fail in languages like Python where dependencies are shared And yet Java and Maven exist...

I updated the post, see near the bottom

Yeah but version ranges are fiction. Some says: we require libpupa 0.2.0+. Sure you can find a version in that range. But what if it doesn’t work? How can you know that your librar…

I worked for 20 years in an ecosystem that didn’t have lockfiles and had reproducible builds before the term was invented, and now you come and tell me that it couldn’t be?

> Lockfiles are essential for somewhat reproducible builds. No they are not. Fully reproducible builds have existed without lockfiles for decades

One of the versions will be picked up. If that version doesn’t work, you can try another one. The process is exactly the same

It’s totally fine in Maven, no need to rebuild or repackage anything. You just override version of libinsecure in your pom.xml and it uses the version you told it to

Clojure Electric is different. It’s not really a sync, it’s more of a thin client. It relies of having fast connection to server at all times, and re-fetches everything all the tim…

If you think of an existing database, like Postgres, sure. It’s not very convenient. What I am saying is, in a perfect world, database and server will be the one and run code _and_…

Ah, no. Not really. People sometimes think about conflict resolution as a problem that needs to be solved. But it’s not solvable, not really. It’s part of the domain, it’s not goin…

> There's no such thing as reliable network in the world I’m not saying there is

- You can have many sync engines - Sync engines might only solve small and medium scale, that would be a huge win even without large scale

It’s not as simple as you make it sound: - Reliable communication is hard - Optimistic writes should on client are hard - Tracking subsets of data is hard (you don't want the entir…

That’s two perfect examples! Racket seems to try to use native widgets, and looks horrible as a result, at least on macOS JavaFX uses the same approach as Humble UI: they draw all …

If they use native widgets, they usually look really bad If they just “imitate” look and feel, they usually fall very short of the real thing Either way, it’s bad experience for th…

It’s a tradeoff. You either make your app native but only for one platform, or you make it look “universal” and run on all three.

All good points, all true. But what’s also true is that current trend is to come up with arbitrary-looking controls even on apps made by Apple themselves. Nobody knows what native …

Not yet, but in theory, sure

We have workshop planned for the middle of September, after that, I hope things will start to stabilize a bit. I already started documenting some stuff in examples app, sort of sel…

Still a state sync though

You can just sell apps for one-time fee. Used to work fine in the past

Yeah but does it solves conflict for you?

Hi :)