Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

tenderlovemaking.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

#51

Post by adithyareddy »

kimos wrote: post #15

I’ve been squinting at the “global cache for all bundler instances” issue[1] and I’m trying to figure out if it’s a minefield of hidden complication or if it’s actually relatively straight forward. It’s interesting as a target because it pays off more the longer it has been implemented as it only would be shared from versions going forward. [1] https://github.com/ruby/rubygems/issues/7249

It's definitely not super straightforward, but there's plenty of recent prior art to steal from. Ruby was probably not the best place to solve this for the first time given the constraints (similar to pip), but there's no reason the Ruby ecosystem shouldn't now benefit from the work other ecosystems have done to solve it.

Re: Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

#52

Post by stouset »

quotemstr wrote: post #42
IshKebab wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Man, it's easy to be fast when you're wrong. There's never going to be a Python 4 so I don't think they are wrong. Even if lighting strikes thrice there's no way they could migrate people to Python 4 before uv could be updated to "fix" that. > Ambiguity detection is important. I'm not sure what you mean here. Pip doesn't detect any ambiguities. In fact Pip's behaviour is a gaping security hole that they've refused…

> Pip doesn't detect any ambiguities. In fact Pip's behaviour is a gaping security hole that they've refused to fix, and as far as I know the only way to avoid it is to use `uv` Agreed the current behavior is stupid, FWIW. I hope PEPs 708 and 752 get implemented soon. I'm just pointing out that there's an important qualitative difference between 1. we do the same job, but much faster; and 2. we decided your job is st…

If it turns out nobody is actually relying on, using, or benefiting from those behaviors #1 and #2 are the same thing.

“If a tree falls in the forest…”

Re: Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

#53

Post by NSPG911 »

stouset wrote: post #32
AlphaSite wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed would be nice, but more than that I want it to also manage Ruby installs. I’m infuriated at the mess of Rubys and version managers.

Mise is the answer to this. I no longer use chruby/rbenv/rvm. And it manages multiple languages, project-local environment, etc.

mise is pretty nice, though I don't use it for python, Python is handled by uv with poethepoet as the task runner.

Re: Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

#54

Post by pmahoney »

lamontcg wrote: post #50

The biggest thing that gems could do to make rubygems faster is to have a registry/database of files for each gem, so that rubygems didn't have to scan the filesystem on every `require` looking for which gem had which file in it. That would mean that if you edited your gems directly, things would break. Add a file, and it wouldn't get found until the metadata got rehashed. The gem install, uninstall, etc commands wou…

I wrote some code to do almost this many years ago (if I recall correctly, it doesn’t cache anything to disk, but builds the hash fresh each time, which can still result in massive speed up).

Probably obsolete and broken by now, but one of my favorite mini projects.

(And I just realized the graph is all but impossible to read in dark mode)

https://github.com/pmahoney/fastup

Re: Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

#55

Post by faizshah »

mberning wrote: post #49

I never found Bundler to be all that slow compared to other package managers.

Rails 8.1 and ruby 3 are also very surprisingly fast, and coming back to an “omakase” framework is honestly a breath of fresh air especially now that with AI tools you can implement a lot of stuff from scratch instead of using deps.

Re: Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

#56

Post by dirtbag__dad »

NSPG911 wrote: post #53
stouset wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mise is the answer to this. I no longer use chruby/rbenv/rvm. And it manages multiple languages, project-local environment, etc.

mise is pretty nice, though I don't use it for python, Python is handled by uv with poethepoet as the task runner.

Can you help me understand what the value or use case of poethepoet is?

Re: Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

#57

Post by tedivm »

nightpool wrote: post #3

Really interesting post, but this part from the beginning stuck out to me: Ruby Gems are tar files, and one of the files in the tar file is a YAML representation of the GemSpec. This YAML file declares all dependencies for the Gem, so RubyGems can know, without evaling anything, what dependencies it needs to install before it can install any particular Gem. Additionally, RubyGems.org provides an API for asking about…

It mostly doesn't matter, because these metadata files are pulled into their respective package managers. When you publish to RubyGems the file is read into their database and made available to their API, just like when you publish a Python file the pyproject.toml is parse into the PyPI database and made available.

This is a major reason why UV is faster than older python package managers, as they were able to take advantage of the change in the PyPI registry that enabled this. Now these package managers can run their dependency calculations without needing to download the entire package, decompress the package files, and then parse them.

Re: Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

#58

Post by chao- »

AlphaSite wrote: post #23
dbalatero wrote: post #8

I appreciate that Aaron is focusing on the practical algorithm/design improvements that could be made to Bundler, vs. prematurely going all in on "rewrite in Rust".

Speed would be nice, but more than that I want it to also manage Ruby installs. I’m infuriated at the mess of Rubys and version managers.

I'm always surprised to hear this, and I want to be clear that I'm not trying to be dismissive in my comment. However, I've not encountered issues while juggling dozens of Ruby projects since around 2011, despite seeing many people's complaints over the years. Ten years ago I was using rvm, and I saw people sharing their issues with it, and listing reasons why rbenv and chruby are better. So I tried those, and my resulting workflow felt basically the same once I got used to the differences.

At this point I've used rbenv, rvm, asdf, mise, and one other whose name isn't coming to mind. Not to mention docker containers, with or without any of those tools.

I don't mean to project any particular complaint onto you, and I'm curious what part of it is infuriating? Each of the version managers I've used has functioned as advertised, and I'm able to get back to work pretty smoothly.

Re: Can Bundler be as fast as uv?

#59

Post by cortesoft »

stouset wrote: post #32
AlphaSite wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed would be nice, but more than that I want it to also manage Ruby installs. I’m infuriated at the mess of Rubys and version managers.

Mise is the answer to this. I no longer use chruby/rbenv/rvm. And it manages multiple languages, project-local environment, etc.

How does it compare to asdf?
Post reply on HN