4 ms·

Too bad the more narrow minded segment of the HN population appears to have buried this one out of spite.. because this is some super pro badass shit, packaged

Too bad the more narrow minded segment of the HN population appears to have buried this one out of spite.. because this is some super pro badass shit, packaged in a hilarious format by jessfraz. Guess it's not everyone's kind of humor, a real tradgedy if you ask me. Can you imagine a future where you don't have to install runtimes to run things anymore because they are all distributed with everything you need? It would be amazing and magical in many ways. No more reinstalling the OS because things got weird after X went berserk. Being forced to pollute my perfect, pristine machines with multiple versions of Python, or having to even commit to a single version of anything seems less good than not having to. I'd rather burn the extra HDD space to avoid risky installs messing up the system.

piva00 9y ago
What you are describing is just a statically linked binary, the world of computing moved away from this well before I started my career but there are pros and cons about it, not only related to disk space.
- pyvpx 9y ago
  what are the pros of dynamically linked binaries, not related to disk and memory usage?
  - pog290 9y ago
    when a security vulnerability is found, you can fix the relevant library without recompiling all the binaries that are linked to it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- zbentley 9y ago
  The world of computing may well be moving back towards this strategy currently. The rise of single-static-binary runtimes (Go, Rust, new Java) and container runtimes (ad hoc, informally-specified static linking for sets of programs) seems to indicate that static linking is far from being consigned to the conceptual rubbish heap.
gkya 9y ago
> Too bad the more narrow minded segment of the HN population appears to have buried this one out of spite.. because this is some super pro badass shit, packaged in a hilarious format by jessfraz. Guess it's not everyone's kind of humor, a real tradgedy if you ask me. I don't know how other users feel, but I feel really annoyed when I have to read this kind of vague attack on the HNers. The fact is that, fortunately, HN is not an exteded circlejerk of badass things and weird humour. For the rest of your comment, I haven't read the article yet, but the phrase "a future where you don't have to install runtimes to run things anymore because they are all distributed with everything you need?" makes me frighthened. That would mean that the same piece of code but slightly different repeated many times in a computing environment. Why would I need multiple versions of Python 3.5 or Ruby 2.3 is beyond me, except for development, where there are tools to manage multiple versions of interpreters and runtimes. And when Python 3.5 is declared vulnerable to the next big security vulnerability, switching to the hypothetical Python 3.5.1 would be a breeze, and I'd be secure; whereas with every package having its stuff vendored within its opaque format, you never know what's outdated and/or vulnerable.

piva00 9y ago

What you are describing is just a statically linked binary, the world of computing moved away from this well before I started my career but there are pros and cons about it, not only related to disk space.

pyvpx 9y ago
what are the pros of dynamically linked binaries, not related to disk and memory usage?
- pog290 9y ago
  when a security vulnerability is found, you can fix the relevant library without recompiling all the binaries that are linked to it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
zbentley 9y ago
The world of computing may well be moving back towards this strategy currently. The rise of single-static-binary runtimes (Go, Rust, new Java) and container runtimes (ad hoc, informally-specified static linking for sets of programs) seems to indicate that static linking is far from being consigned to the conceptual rubbish heap.

gkya 9y ago

> Too bad the more narrow minded segment of the HN population appears to have buried this one out of spite.. because this is some super pro badass shit, packaged in a hilarious format by jessfraz. Guess it's not everyone's kind of humor, a real tradgedy if you ask me. I don't know how other users feel, but I feel really annoyed when I have to read this kind of vague attack on the HNers. The fact is that, fortunately, HN is not an exteded circlejerk of badass things and weird humour. For the rest of your comment, I haven't read the article yet, but the phrase "a future where you don't have to install runtimes to run things anymore because they are all distributed with everything you need?" makes me frighthened. That would mean that the same piece of code but slightly different repeated many times in a computing environment. Why would I need multiple versions of Python 3.5 or Ruby 2.3 is beyond me, except for development, where there are tools to manage multiple versions of interpreters and runtimes. And when Python 3.5 is declared vulnerable to the next big security vulnerability, switching to the hypothetical Python 3.5.1 would be a breeze, and I'd be secure; whereas with every package having its stuff vendored within its opaque format, you never know what's outdated and/or vulnerable.