3 ms·

Go programs are a nightmare to package for linux distros due to the way they handle dependencies so I would strongly discourage any other language from copying

Go programs are a nightmare to package for linux distros due to the way they handle dependencies so I would strongly discourage any other language from copying the Go model.

jitl 2y ago
This says more about Linux distros creaky 90s era design than it says about Go’s model.
- crabbone 2y ago
  Not really. With all the problems of packaging software for Linux, I'll take that any time over Go. The whole "spirit" of how Go authors approached every infrastructure task they had was to start as simple as possible and grow as necessary, in small increments. Unfortunately, incrementalism doesn't work in this domain. It's very hard / virtually impossible to go back and undo bad decisions once they become public. Some steps will require sweeping changes all across the board and cannot be performed in one increment. Go packaging mostly works because of the extra restrictions imposed on themselves by most package authors. But, if you were to stray off the beaten path, you'll discover that the system is unprepared to deal with your case. Go is the opposite of thoughtful and insightful design. It wins at first because its fast and easy to do, and once you are hooked, you will have to work extra hard to deal with the difficult parts yourself.
  - jitl 2y ago
    I guess I view Debian et al similarly to how you view Go: distros like Debian have been incrementally iterating on a simple design since the 90s and their package systems have become a Katamari Damacy ball of mud around a core designed for having a single agreed-upon version of each C library shared by all software in the universe. Now to reliably distribute Linux software, it’s very popular to distribute the software along with the entire userspace the software compiled against in the form of a Docker container.
    - crabbone 2y ago
      > it’s very popular to distribute the software along with the entire userspace OK, there are two ways to interpret the word "popular". * As in "a presidential candidate enjoyed popular support". * As in "ski is a popular sport in some European countries". So, let me tell you this: distributing software with the entire userspace is not popular, if you use the first interpretation of the word. Users hate developers who distribute software like this, this is what they call "bloatware", "not a team-player" etc. I, personally, despise developers who do this, because, from my perspective, these are the low-skill developers who do less to get equal pay at my expense (as a user). But, of course, it's popular to be a bad developer, in the same way how it's popular to steal bicycles -- low effort, high reward, if you ignore the disappointment of someone else.

Go programs are a nightmare to package for linux distros due to the way they handle dependencies so I would strongly discourage any other language from copying the Go model.

jitl 2y ago

This says more about Linux distros creaky 90s era design than it says about Go’s model.

crabbone 2y ago
Not really. With all the problems of packaging software for Linux, I'll take that any time over Go. The whole "spirit" of how Go authors approached every infrastructure task they had was to start as simple as possible and grow as necessary, in small increments. Unfortunately, incrementalism doesn't work in this domain. It's very hard / virtually impossible to go back and undo bad decisions once they become public. Some steps will require sweeping changes all across the board and cannot be performed in one increment. Go packaging mostly works because of the extra restrictions imposed on themselves by most package authors. But, if you were to stray off the beaten path, you'll discover that the system is unprepared to deal with your case. Go is the opposite of thoughtful and insightful design. It wins at first because its fast and easy to do, and once you are hooked, you will have to work extra hard to deal with the difficult parts yourself.
- jitl 2y ago
  I guess I view Debian et al similarly to how you view Go: distros like Debian have been incrementally iterating on a simple design since the 90s and their package systems have become a Katamari Damacy ball of mud around a core designed for having a single agreed-upon version of each C library shared by all software in the universe. Now to reliably distribute Linux software, it’s very popular to distribute the software along with the entire userspace the software compiled against in the form of a Docker container.
  - crabbone 2y ago
    > it’s very popular to distribute the software along with the entire userspace OK, there are two ways to interpret the word "popular". * As in "a presidential candidate enjoyed popular support". * As in "ski is a popular sport in some European countries". So, let me tell you this: distributing software with the entire userspace is not popular, if you use the first interpretation of the word. Users hate developers who distribute software like this, this is what they call "bloatware", "not a team-player" etc. I, personally, despise developers who do this, because, from my perspective, these are the low-skill developers who do less to get equal pay at my expense (as a user). But, of course, it's popular to be a bad developer, in the same way how it's popular to steal bicycles -- low effort, high reward, if you ignore the disappointment of someone else.