5 ms·

This is a bit dramatic. You're a software developer, building an app which has dependencies, so of course you have to download those dependencies to build. Wher

This is a bit dramatic. You're a software developer, building an app which has dependencies, so of course you have to download those dependencies to build. Where else would they come from? Literally every language with a package manager does the same thing.

no_time 5y ago
Being able to make a portable build of the software you are creating is such a basic feature it's baffling you have to fetch extra data to do that. Also nowhere in "dotnet publish -o ./publish -r win-x64" I said "Connect to the internet and fetch megabytes of binaries" What I miss is the old model for installing software. Give me the yearly ISO, optionally provide a service pack or two if some huge problem went under the radar in testing.
- Dayshine 5y ago
  `dotnet publish` performs an implicit `dotnet restore`. So, yes, you did. If you don't want it to download anything then you use the `dotnet publish --no-restore` flag, which is used a lot in CI/CD pipelines. If you don't have the package dependencies cached it will then simply fail.
- howdydoo 5y ago
  The opposite side of that coin is a required up-front install of every package that might ever be needed for every possible scenario... in which case people would complain (even more) about massive installs. The internet exists, the industry has evolved, software has dependencies, and yes you have to download them (just like you had to download the SDK ISOs back in the day). But it's just one command, run it and get it over with, and after that up-front one-time pain you'll have a nice offline workflow.
  - Hnrobert42 5y ago
    You are welcome to the philosophy that says, “the internet exists. Adapt or perish.” It may serve you well. For many, it is not so black and white. Internet connections are spotty, slow, or expensive. In GP’s case, there is no internet. Like I said, you are welcome to ignore those users. But your ignorance (I don’t mean that in a derogatory way) doesn’t change their situation.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    I'm not OP, so interpreting: I don't think OP is asking for an up-front install of every package under the sun that might ever be needed for any kind of development. He's just asking that, out of the box, the build tools can build software with no dependencies into an executable without having to hit the Internet. And, if he has particular dependencies he needs, allow him to download them (ONCE) onto that machine, and again, he can build software into an executable without having to hit the Internet again. This doesn't seem that unreasonable a request. Every other compiler I've ever used has had this feature. It wasn't even a feature. It's just the way software has always worked. I should be able to take my computer to a remote cabin with no Internet, and use all the software on it. The only software I'd expect to not work is software whose purpose is to access data stored on the Internet, like web browsers. I don't think this is such a crazy user expectation.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  > make a portable build of the software you are creating is such a basic feature That is easily doable. However users often don't want a copy of a large runtime for each and every program they use, so it often makes sense to move common things (like DLLs, runtimes, your OS) to libraries that can be shared. You can easily make dotnet apps in either flavor to your liking. And not every developer is going to make their apps to appeal the your needs.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
There was a time when MS didn't understand the internet and none of their build tools depended on it.
Silhouette 5y ago
We seem to have normalised the current situation as an industry, but that doesn't mean the situation is good. In days gone by we used to have truly standard libraries and runtimes, in the sense that they came with your build tools out of the box and so were available everywhere. Host platforms similarly provided basic services universally. Documentation was often excellent and also available out of the box. In that environment, writing "Hello, world!" meant writing one line that said do that, maybe with a little boilerplate around it depending on your language. Running a single simple command from a shell then either interpreted your program immediately or compiled it to a single self-contained executable file that you could run immediately. Introducing external dependencies was something you did carefully and rarely (by today's standards) when you had a specific need and the external resource was the best way to meet that need. Some things about software development were better in those days. Having limited functionality in standard libraries and then relying on package managers and build tools where the norm is transitively installing numerous dependencies just to implement basic and widely useful functionality is not an improvement. The need for frameworks and scaffolding tools because otherwise you can spend several hours just writing the boilerplate and setting up your infrastructure is not an improvement.

no_time 5y ago

Being able to make a portable build of the software you are creating is such a basic feature it's baffling you have to fetch extra data to do that. Also nowhere in "dotnet publish -o ./publish -r win-x64" I said "Connect to the internet and fetch megabytes of binaries" What I miss is the old model for installing software. Give me the yearly ISO, optionally provide a service pack or two if some huge problem went under the radar in testing.

Dayshine 5y ago
`dotnet publish` performs an implicit `dotnet restore`. So, yes, you did. If you don't want it to download anything then you use the `dotnet publish --no-restore` flag, which is used a lot in CI/CD pipelines. If you don't have the package dependencies cached it will then simply fail.
howdydoo 5y ago
The opposite side of that coin is a required up-front install of every package that might ever be needed for every possible scenario... in which case people would complain (even more) about massive installs. The internet exists, the industry has evolved, software has dependencies, and yes you have to download them (just like you had to download the SDK ISOs back in the day). But it's just one command, run it and get it over with, and after that up-front one-time pain you'll have a nice offline workflow.
- Hnrobert42 5y ago
  You are welcome to the philosophy that says, “the internet exists. Adapt or perish.” It may serve you well. For many, it is not so black and white. Internet connections are spotty, slow, or expensive. In GP’s case, there is no internet. Like I said, you are welcome to ignore those users. But your ignorance (I don’t mean that in a derogatory way) doesn’t change their situation.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  I'm not OP, so interpreting: I don't think OP is asking for an up-front install of every package under the sun that might ever be needed for any kind of development. He's just asking that, out of the box, the build tools can build software with no dependencies into an executable without having to hit the Internet. And, if he has particular dependencies he needs, allow him to download them (ONCE) onto that machine, and again, he can build software into an executable without having to hit the Internet again. This doesn't seem that unreasonable a request. Every other compiler I've ever used has had this feature. It wasn't even a feature. It's just the way software has always worked. I should be able to take my computer to a remote cabin with no Internet, and use all the software on it. The only software I'd expect to not work is software whose purpose is to access data stored on the Internet, like web browsers. I don't think this is such a crazy user expectation.
ChrisLomont 5y ago
> make a portable build of the software you are creating is such a basic feature That is easily doable. However users often don't want a copy of a large runtime for each and every program they use, so it often makes sense to move common things (like DLLs, runtimes, your OS) to libraries that can be shared. You can easily make dotnet apps in either flavor to your liking. And not every developer is going to make their apps to appeal the your needs.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

There was a time when MS didn't understand the internet and none of their build tools depended on it.

Silhouette 5y ago

We seem to have normalised the current situation as an industry, but that doesn't mean the situation is good. In days gone by we used to have truly standard libraries and runtimes, in the sense that they came with your build tools out of the box and so were available everywhere. Host platforms similarly provided basic services universally. Documentation was often excellent and also available out of the box. In that environment, writing "Hello, world!" meant writing one line that said do that, maybe with a little boilerplate around it depending on your language. Running a single simple command from a shell then either interpreted your program immediately or compiled it to a single self-contained executable file that you could run immediately. Introducing external dependencies was something you did carefully and rarely (by today's standards) when you had a specific need and the external resource was the best way to meet that need. Some things about software development were better in those days. Having limited functionality in standard libraries and then relying on package managers and build tools where the norm is transitively installing numerous dependencies just to implement basic and widely useful functionality is not an improvement. The need for frameworks and scaffolding tools because otherwise you can spend several hours just writing the boilerplate and setting up your infrastructure is not an improvement.