Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement • Hacker News Board

Re: Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement

#111

Post by boz666 » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 11:11 PM UTC

jsavimbi wrote: post #91

Cloven wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, ruby is a language, and rvm is a collection of really fragile and dangerous shell script hacks.

RVM provides a great service to people who work on multiple projects with multiple dependencies across the range of Rubies. Knowing how complicated that type of development was before RVM, I can attest that it may many people's lives a hell of a lot easier. And if you bother to RTFM, is very easy to understand and employ every day, compared to other parts of the Ruby ecosystem who don't have a talented developer supp…

It absolutely sucks.

Managing multiple versions of Ruby and all the gems is very easy manually.

RVM is a buggy collection of extremely fragile and dangerous scripts.

Re: Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement

#112

Post by boz666 » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 11:12 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #27

I'm having trouble imagining who this is for, at least in the context of an RVM replacement. The point of RVM is convenience. It's like RVM, only without most of the convenience (gemsets, installing standard versions and migrating between versions, primarily). If I wanted to manually manage all my Rubies, I wouldn't be using RVM. I like the sentiment of being less of a hack than RVM, but I just don't see much use for…

Every other week something goes wrong with RVM. Nothing convenient about that.

Re: Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement

#113

Post by boz666 » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 11:15 PM UTC

hadis wrote: post #75

mhansen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the main reason I'm not using RVM. I depend on `cd` to work, every time, rock solid, especially when my system is unstable. I can't risk having a dependency or bug in their `cd` script breaking my most commonly used shell command.

So then what did you use on your development machine to test your ruby apps with till now? What did you use if not RVM? I am happy that RVM exists and made my life as ruby developer much easier even if it overrides 'cd'. Also to note i never had problems with RVM. Your main reason not using RVM is poor, as if there were more options out there till now.

.bash_profile? How hard is that?

ruby==ruby 1.8.7 ruby9==ruby 1.9.2 jruby== jruby 1.6 jruby5==jruby 1.5

Yeah, real tough.

Re: Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement

#114

Post by boz666 » Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 11:20 PM UTC

SpikeGronim wrote: post #13

bonzoesc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a pressing need to use RVM in production; when I deploy, I pick a Ruby version and stick with it unless there's a security issue, at which point I pull the updated REE package from Phusion/let Heroku figure it out. Considering the many times I've seen RVM installs fail due to checked-in broken code, I'd hardly call it "production ready" either.

I have to use rvm in production because debian/ubuntu install ruby 1.8 and I need 1.9.2 for rails 3. Ruby isn't in the alternatives system (yet - coming soon) so I don't see a better way.

Installing 1.9.2 from source if it is in fact not in the repos is far better then using RVM.

Using RVM anywhere is suboptimal, but using it in production is lunacy.

Re: Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement

#115

Post by patcon » Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 10:31 PM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #58

sstephenson wrote: post #6

An official release with a web site and improved installation process should be out next week. If you're wondering "why would I use this instead of rvm?" be sure to read the readme: https://github.com/sstephenson/rbenv#readme

Looks terrific. I only wish for a way to install new rubies the same way you do it in RVM, rather than a "manual" install.

New here, but could this solve your concern? Or was this is "manual" way you referred to?

https://github.com/jamis/rbenv-gemset