101–110 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He's arguing for developers to be more conscious of the dependencies they use "be careful all the time" doesn't scale. Half of all developers have below-average diligence, and that's a low bar. No-one is always vigilant, don't think that you're immune to human error. No, you need tooling, automation to assist. It needs to be supported at the package manager side. Managing a site where many files are uploaded, and t…
> "be careful all the time" doesn't scale Yes, this is the C attitude, where you provide no safety rails or poka-yokes or, indeed, package managers, and therefore you get a lot of fragile reimplementations of package managers (autoconf, anyone?). But you get to keep the satisfaction of blaming the users. nuget is pretty good. It helps that packages tend to be substantial things, not left-pad.
GNU Autoconf isn't a package manager, it's more an analogue to a setup executable on MS Windows, to detect where the user wants stuff to be installed, where the user has stuff already installed and which features the user wants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Rust didn't have Cargo to automate dependency hell, someone would create a third party script to fill the gap. Possibly but not guaranteed. Some other languages without a built in package manager haven't had an external one manage to take over the ecosystem, most (in)famously C and C++, while others have.
Most language users will follow the "spirit" of the language - e.g. Bill is against package managers, people who use his language mostly agree with his ideas, and there's not a huge standard Odin package manager. I rather appreciate that C and C++ don't have a default package manager that took over - yes, integrating libraries is a bit more difficult, but we also have a lot of small, self-contained libraries that jus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The term “evil” is being used partially hyperbolic to make a point. Kind of bonkers this even needs to be said, and even then it's missed/ignored.
The title is provocative and attention grabbing. -- It's completely fair game to react to the provocation rather than the substance of the article itself. (Or, rather, it's silly to use attention grabbing rhetoric, then complain that people paid attention to the rhetoric). I'd prefer instead a more balanced title like "Remember to Consider the Costs When Using Package Managers", or whatever.
Your "more balanced title" isn't even close to what I am saying. I am saying that Package Managers are just bad and should not be used. Not "remember to consider the costs". The net cost is bad for everyone, that's why I said "evil".
Plus Lua for package recipes. It’s going really well!
EDIT: I've been rate limited, so the point is: unless you're Terry Davis, you're not going to be able to write software of any real complexity. Few people are going to even bother to vet the standard library, let alone the compiler, the runtime, etc etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inexperience of an author who develops quite successful programming language for like 10 years? Quite a bold statement. Actually his perspective is quite reasonable. Go is in the other part of the spectrum than languages encouraging "left-pad"-type of libraries, and this is a good thing.
I've seen plenty of intelligent people acting pretty stupid. As my psychology professor used to say. "Smart is how efficiently use your intelligence. Or don't." So someone pretty low IQ can be smart - Forrest Gump. Or someone high IQ can be dumb occasionally - a professor so very attuned to his research topic at expense of everything else.
There are three points of prioritization here: you can use other peoples' code, manually vet all the code you're running, or accept that you need to trust a social network to vet stuff for you. Pick two. This is not a solvable problem. EDIT: I've been rate limited, so the point is: unless you're Terry Davis, you're not going to be able to write software of any real complexity. Few people are going to even bother to v…
I’ve had major Nissan Altima effect with this lately. A few weeks ago I set out to make a simple C and C++ package manager that just ignores dependency hell in favor of you explicitly specifying packages. And no binaries, just build from source and use Git as a backend for managing what source maps to what builds. Plus Lua for package recipes. It’s going really well!
Isn't that basically manual dependency hell?
"When using Go for example, you don’t need any third-party libraries to make a web server, Go has it all there and you are done." Fine, now what if you need to connect to a database, or parse a PDF, or talk to a grpc backend. What a hilariously short-sighted example. To me, this whole article just screams inexperience.