SearchTalks, papers and other documentsUser loginContent by categoryBlog postsTalks, papers and documents |
Ruby has a distribution problemSubmitted by gwolf on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 11:30
I usually don't like me too comments... But this is something that really disappoints me of my otherwise-favorite development framework. I must echo Matt Palmer's comment on Luke Kanies' entry:
( categories: )
|
Random photoFortune"slackware users don't matter. in my experience, slackware users are
either clueless newbies who will have trouble even with tar, or they are
rabid do-it-yourselfers who wouldn't install someone else's pre-compiled
binary even if they were paid to do it."
Live trafficCurrent weatherMexico City
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 04:46 |
distribution problems...
has Ruby a distribution problem? THE WORLD has a distribution problem. more than one, of course. the development opportunities maybe is the more important, but there are some others....
I agree with you. However...
You know this saying, think globally, act locally. I am involved with Perl and Ruby. The Perl community is great to work with, they have a great infrastructure, and mostly value stability over new features, long-term support and full documentation. And... Well, I'm trying to convince some Ruby people, bit by bit, that the same is required in their community. Ruby is a really great language... But severly lacking in this regard.
What exactly is wrong with
What exactly is wrong with Rubygems?
It is the ONLY package management system that I have ever used that has never failed. It is 100 times superior to aptitude on Debian-based Linux systems.
I have NEVER failed to resolve a dependency issue with a simple "gem install" command. That says volumes in my opinion. How many times have you tried to use apt-get or some other system and simply given up after five hours of frustrating error messages and crap? The simple fact is, Rubygems works.
Plus, it's awesome to be able to install multiple versions of the same library. For example, our production system is using some old versions of gems since the system itself is a few years old. It is so nice to be able to easily install the older versions to never have to worry about upgrade issues and having things break.
To begin with...
Having multiple package management systems is bad for most users. People trust their distribution to take care of the details - Regular users, I mean, not just developers. I understand developers can have the need for specific features in the newest versions - but most users only care about installing applications. I trust Debian to handle the security updates, for just any component in my system, no matter whether it is an obscure Ruby, Perl or C library.
I want to be able to just write "aptitude install foo", and having foo ready - I don't care what language was foo written in, or what does it need installed besides itself. I just want to run it.
And your experience with Apt... Well, what can I say? I think that, as a DD, I am in the population group which most messes around with their installed packages. Yet, apt is pretty reliable to me, I don't recall ever spending "five hours of frustrating error messages and crap". That would surely have sent me to a more robust distribution!
You're right!
Why should we have more than one package management system on our computers?
For app developers it's about being OS agnostic
I had started a longer comment here, but decided to do a blog post reply instead:
http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/12/04/rubygem-is-from-mars-aptget...
I had always heard of Ruby on
I had always heard of Ruby on Rails but never adopted for any of my projects.. I was always keen on meeting people using it to get how they felt and thought about it compared to others.
Finally I got this opportunity to work with it for one of my clients and huh it is huge I should say...
Dean Martin
Post new comment