4 ms·
> There's no reason why a package-management system needs to be language-specific; dependencies are often cross-language. Hell, even some blocks of code contain
by Sebb767 4y ago
> There's no reason why a package-management system needs to be language-specific; dependencies are often cross-language. Hell, even some blocks of code contain more than one language.
This sounds a lot like a case of https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ . Languages have different ways of importing and installing dependencies, trying to create a package manager over all of those is just going to end up making things even more complex, especially if you target all platforms at once.
> Using git as a repository is just nuts. Git is privately-owned, and stuffed with all kinds of unaudited junk.
Git is fully open source. Are you confusing Git and GitHub?
- tazjin 4y ago> Languages have different ways of importing and installing dependencies They're not actually different. They call things differently, and they have different methods of passing the required lookup paths/artifacts/sources to their compilers/interpreters/linkers, but in the end all of them are conceptually the same thing.
- krapp 4y ago>but in the end all of them are conceptually the same thing The concept of a programming language isn't what people use, but the concrete reality of specific implementations on specific hardware. You could also say that a coffee cup and a donut aren't actually different because they're topologically the same... but the facts on the ground do actually matter.
- tazjin 4y agoIt absolutely does matter in this case. We have written implementations of this concept for very different languages (Go, Common Lisp, Erlang, C) and the conceptual equality means that nothing is different at the core, only at the edges (where you integrate with each snowflake's particular flavour of "what are the names of the command-line arguments to the compiler" and so on).