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

CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 320 posts

Re: CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

#91

Post by seanalltogether »

Moto7451 wrote: post #66
pavlov wrote: post #15

I've never really understood CocoaPods. Dragging a framework into Xcode was never much trouble, and the amount of 3rd party libraries in a OS X / iOS project ought to be fairly small, so the gains are trivial. The potential downsides seem much more annoying. Do you really want to have your dependencies on an overloaded central server somewhere?

Until recently iOS only supported statically linked libraries which could lead to issues if you needed to use multiple components that had a shared dependency that you needed to upgrade for one reason or another. You couldn't touch the embedded version. Additionally there was no native package manager which made sharing libraries a clumsy affair. Cocoapods makes both cases easier.

This is correct. Starting with iOS 8 they finally allowed linking against custom frameworks which is why Carthage is now becoming much more popular. CocoaPods solved a critical problem of getting dependencies linked in, while creating a new problem of having your xcodeproj file and build settings be managed by them. I'll be happy enough to drop them for new projects going forward.

Re: CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

#93

Post by kodablah »

zymhan wrote: post #10

I've always found Github's business model interesting. What if a massive open-source organization (e.g. Fedora, Apache) decided to use it for all of their development, integrating it with continuous builds and all the associated pulls. Of course this isn't likely to happen for a number of reasons, but there are large open source projects that could put a significant load on their infrastructure if they chose to use G…

> What if a massive open-source organization (e.g. Fedora, Apache)

https://github.com/apache - Lots of mirrors but many projects use it as their main source.

Re: CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

#94

Post by neoncontrails »

thecodemonkey wrote: post #63
ak217 wrote: post #54

I love GitHub's response, but I would urge the project more strongly to use modern CDN solutions. CDNs are dirt cheap and incredibly powerful nowadays, for the data sizes that we're talking about here.

How would you define "dirt cheap"? One of the most popular CDN's out there (Akamai) charges $3,500/month for 10TB/month. Who's going to foot that bill? :)

10TB Amazon AWS is around $85-100, depending on how international your users are.

Re: CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

#95

Post by yegle »

jahewson wrote: post #88
pjc50 wrote: post #14

This reply: https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/4989#issuecomm... "Not having to develop a system that somehow syncs required data at all means we get to spend more time on the work that matters more to us, in this case. (i.e. funding of dev hours)" In other words, using github as a free unlimited CDN lets them be as inefficient as they like. Such as having 16k entries in a directory ( https://github.com/Co…

Care to substantiate that last paragraph? Are you really suggesting OS X users use yum?

Why not? dpkg is already been used by jailbroken devices in Cydia.

Re: CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

#96

Post by ak217 »

thecodemonkey wrote: post #63
ak217 wrote: post #54

I love GitHub's response, but I would urge the project more strongly to use modern CDN solutions. CDNs are dirt cheap and incredibly powerful nowadays, for the data sizes that we're talking about here.

How would you define "dirt cheap"? One of the most popular CDN's out there (Akamai) charges $3,500/month for 10TB/month. Who's going to foot that bill? :)

That's a list price that they charge those who don't care to negotiate.

CloudFlare starts at $0 and doesn't meter/charge for bandwidth. CloudFront charges 9 cents per GB and is integrated with other AWS APIs (which can be very useful). Both those solutions could be managed with a donation pool, I would try the CloudFlare free tier first.

Re: CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

#97

Post by yegle »

superuser2 wrote: post #31
pjc50 wrote: post #14

This reply: https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/4989#issuecomm... "Not having to develop a system that somehow syncs required data at all means we get to spend more time on the work that matters more to us, in this case. (i.e. funding of dev hours)" In other words, using github as a free unlimited CDN lets them be as inefficient as they like. Such as having 16k entries in a directory ( https://github.com/Co…

Perhaps because Cocoapods is not an OS package manager or anything close to it. It installs libraries within the context of an XCode project, regardless of the host system or what is installed for other projects.

A package manager for a project can be the same os package manager with reduced dependency tree and default to install with a prefix (that is the project root or the vendor directory).

Re: CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

#99

Post by lucaspiller »

wpeterson wrote: post #33

It's totally reasonable to host your code on github and to build a package manager that loads the content of a package from it's github repo. What seems insane is to use a single github repo as the universal directory of packages and their versions driving your package manager. There's a reason rubygems has their own servers and web services to support this use case for the central library registry, even if the sourc…

I assume they modelled it after Homebrew, which has been working fine doing exactly that for the last 7 years.

That only has 3,000 packages vs 15,000 for CocoaPods or 115,000 for RubyGems.

Re: CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

#100

Post by nostrademons »

Gratsby wrote: post #11

From CocoaPods.org: > CocoaPods is a dependency manager for Swift and Objective-C Cocoa projects. It has over ten thousand libraries and can help you scale your projects elegantly. The developer response: > [As CocoaPods developers] Scaling and operating this repo is actually quite simple for us as CocoaPods developers whom do not want to take on the burden of having to maintain a cloud service around the clock (user…

Well, the flip side is that the CocoaPods developers are all volunteers (right?). They aren't really deriving any benefit out of the work they do on CocoaPods, and if you ask them to take on financial or ongoing maintenance obligations for a volunteer project, they probably just won't do it. The major benefits of CocoaPods existence go to iOS developers, but there's a tragedy of the commons effect here, where no individual developer is willing to pony up money for the extra convenience that CocoaPods offers.

I think that long-term, the solution will be the Swift Package Manager, and CocoaPods will just be deprecated in favor of it. Let Apple host iOS packages; they're the ones that gain the most benefit from easy iOS development; they have the developer expertise, and the hosting costs are a drop in the bucket compared to iCloud & CloudKit. But that's not all that helpful for people who need an Objective-C package now.

Post reply on HN