4 ms·

well that's the thing, you never know. certainly if i ever used rust to a serious degree, i'd not stop using darcs. however right now that'd necessitate bypassi

well that's the thing, you never know. certainly if i ever used rust to a serious degree, i'd not stop using darcs. however right now that'd necessitate bypassing the whole package management part of cargo, at least for my own libraries (and i suffer from a terminal case of NIH syndrome) i don't think it's reasonable to assert that my own quirks and tastes are explicitly tended to. and that's why ideally you just give the programmer space to do whatever, hence why it's so hard. vcs is just one single point of contention. this isn't unique to rust by the way. cargo is arguably a bit better than the dune experience, it's a bit more flexible and feels simpler. arguably system package managers are better here, since they're effectively opt-in by choosing what distribution of what operating system you use. language package managers don't have that luxury.

steveklabnik 2y ago
What I mean is that in open source, things only get done by people motivated to do them. Nobody has ever even asked for darcs support: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20darcs https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20sta... So the lack of darcs isn’t because the Cargo folks think it’s bad or something. Just that things don’t get added just because. Re quirks, sure, that’s why rustc and cargo are different. You don’t have to use Cargo. Meta does not, the Linux kernel does not.
- johnnyjeans 2y ago
  sure sure, and what i mean is that ideally the package manager can be made to use any arbitrary vcs system by the programmer. that's all. early on choices were made with cargo's development to where it's non-trivial to make something like that work, you touched on that briefly. it's a good example of why making a package manager is hard, there are so many aspects to them and it's really easy to engineer yourself into a corner to where any individual aspect of them might be flawed. typical software problem, expounded by the fact that package managers are deceptively complicated. doubly expounded by what i mention with language package managers not having the "opt-in" inherent quality of system package managers, not in the same way. ideally it'd just have an interface you can write a module against. maybe they've added that? i sure hope they didn't have to hardcode the options of that new vcs switch ;) > that’s why rustc and cargo are different indeed. but rust analyzer really likes you to use cargo. i know it provides facilities for specifying a json in place of cargo.toml, which is great, but my limited experience with that saw me running into some weird issues (maybe they've been fixed, maybe it was just a skill issue.) also i will say cargo does at least let you specify local paths as dependencies relatively painlessly, so it gets points for that escape hatch.
  - steveklabnik 2y ago
    > (maybe they've been fixed, maybe it was just a skill issue.) Maybe! This is how Meta uses RA, and they sponsor development, and I know at least one of the people working on it and he really cares about getting things right, so if you run into it again, you should open up an issue.

steveklabnik 2y ago

What I mean is that in open source, things only get done by people motivated to do them. Nobody has ever even asked for darcs support: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20darcs https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20sta... So the lack of darcs isn’t because the Cargo folks think it’s bad or something. Just that things don’t get added just because. Re quirks, sure, that’s why rustc and cargo are different. You don’t have to use Cargo. Meta does not, the Linux kernel does not.

johnnyjeans 2y ago
sure sure, and what i mean is that ideally the package manager can be made to use any arbitrary vcs system by the programmer. that's all. early on choices were made with cargo's development to where it's non-trivial to make something like that work, you touched on that briefly. it's a good example of why making a package manager is hard, there are so many aspects to them and it's really easy to engineer yourself into a corner to where any individual aspect of them might be flawed. typical software problem, expounded by the fact that package managers are deceptively complicated. doubly expounded by what i mention with language package managers not having the "opt-in" inherent quality of system package managers, not in the same way. ideally it'd just have an interface you can write a module against. maybe they've added that? i sure hope they didn't have to hardcode the options of that new vcs switch ;) > that’s why rustc and cargo are different indeed. but rust analyzer really likes you to use cargo. i know it provides facilities for specifying a json in place of cargo.toml, which is great, but my limited experience with that saw me running into some weird issues (maybe they've been fixed, maybe it was just a skill issue.) also i will say cargo does at least let you specify local paths as dependencies relatively painlessly, so it gets points for that escape hatch.
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  > (maybe they've been fixed, maybe it was just a skill issue.) Maybe! This is how Meta uses RA, and they sponsor development, and I know at least one of the people working on it and he really cares about getting things right, so if you run into it again, you should open up an issue.