5 ms·

"When using Go for example, you don’t need any third-party libraries to make a web server, Go has it all there and you are done." Fine, now what if you need to

by smw 1y ago

"When using Go for example, you don’t need any third-party libraries to make a web server, Go has it all there and you are done." Fine, now what if you need to connect to a database, or parse a PDF, or talk to a grpc backend. What a hilariously short-sighted example. To me, this whole article just screams inexperience.

kunley 1y ago
Inexperience of an author who develops quite successful programming language for like 10 years? Quite a bold statement. Actually his perspective is quite reasonable. Go is in the other part of the spectrum than languages encouraging "left-pad"-type of libraries, and this is a good thing.
- Ygg2 1y ago
  I've seen plenty of intelligent people acting pretty stupid. As my psychology professor used to say. "Smart is how efficiently use your intelligence. Or don't." So someone pretty low IQ can be smart - Forrest Gump. Or someone high IQ can be dumb occasionally - a professor so very attuned to his research topic at expense of everything else.
  - kunley 1y ago
    How is this relating to the alleged inexperience of the original author? Not sure what do you mean.
    - drzaiusx11 1y ago
      The above comment is merely pointing out that a 10y+ experienced language designer can still have naive viewpoints on application development. Anyone who's built a non-trivial userspace application knows that realistically you'll have to reach outside a particular languages standard library in most cases to provide value without reinventing wheels. In other words: when someone's knowledge is disproportionately localized/siloed to their prospective subfield or domain of expertise, it does not necessitate generalization to others. I'm certainly not saying this is the case with this particular individual, as I'm personally not familiar with their background. I'm simply stating that it's a plausible explanation for when experts in one domain make naive assertions about another domain they might not have the same experience in.
      - kunley 1y ago
        I don't buy it. A guy designing and then implementing a programming language has a much bigger chance to put a lot of rational thinking into the tooling like dependency manager, than a typical language consumer, who can and often is easily falling into the languages emo wars.
        Ygg2 1y ago
        > than a typical language consumer, who can and often is easily falling into the languages emo wars. How is ginger bill excluded from this group? No one is more invested in a language than its creator(s). Sure, he might have given it a lot of thought, but he came up with some completely bonkers conclusions. If you don't want dependencies, DON'T IMPORT DEPENDENCIES. Don't make your dependencies extremely hard to add.
        gingerBill 1y ago
        I have? Pray tell.
        Ygg2 1y ago
        Have what? Heavily invested in language you're building? I think that's a given. Not clear-headed about this? https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1nbkwzt/package_managers_are_evil/nd341ku/ https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1nbkwzt/packag... > gingerbill[S] 1 point 2 hours ago > So a tool that enables evil is not an evil tool? See counterpoint: hammers, freezers, cars, arrows, guns, bombs, planes, etc. Each of them *can* enable evil. Same way a package manager *can* enable sprawling dependency list.
        gingerBill 1y ago
        You see you just completely missed my replies to that too. > Let's put it this way, what does a package manager specifically (not the other distinctions I make in the article) do (other than enable bad laziness and lack of proper vetting) that is actually good? https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1nbkwzt/package_managers_are_evil/nd397ul/ https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1nbkwzt/packag...
  - gingerBill 1y ago
    Thank you?
- tialaramex 1y ago
  Is it "quite successful"? How would I distinguish such a "quite successful" language from say Hare or V or are these all "successful" in your mind?
  - gingerBill 1y ago
    I know very few people using Hare, especially since it only works on "FOSS platforms". And I will still maintain that V is vapourware. They still have the same false claims on the website that they've had from the beginning for ~6 years. Odin is "successful enough" so far. Also, you know about it, so that says something.
    - tialaramex 1y ago
      I know about Hare and V too, so, then what exactly does it say for me to know about a programming language? Not much. I have technically written more Odin than Hare (one Godbolt example, arguably two if you count my explaining how to modify the example to illustrate another problem) but that just means I have more justification to say I don't like it. I've written a lot more Scheme and I had so thoroughly forgotten writing Scheme that I had to go read the source for myself when I got email about it decades later to be sure it wasn't just a coincidence of author names. I'm not convinced there is space for any of the "C successor" languages in the twenty-first century and in the event space is made or given for one I doubt there'll somehow be room for more. So with today's field I would bet on Zig.
      - gingerBill 1y ago
        Odin is not trying to be a "C successor" rather as the website states: "Odin is the C alternative for the Joy of Programming". And there doesn't have to be "one winner". This isn't Highlander. It is just wonderful that there is now choice in this domain beyond just the old and obvious.
  - kunley 1y ago
    Why the need for distinguishing and an urge for comparison? We're talking about Odin, that's it. As a project that (as I understand) didn't have any big corp investment, it's impressive.
- user____name 1y ago
  Not to mention we've have had decades of software development without automated package managers and people did just fine.
1GZ0 1y ago
The Author isn't arguing for not using third party dependencies. He's arguing for developers to be more conscious of the dependencies they use, by manually vetting and handling them. That screams "I've been down the package manager route and paid the price". Not inexperience.
- pipes 1y ago
  But titled the post "package managers are evil"
  - Defletter 1y ago
    > The term “evil” is being used partially hyperbolic to make a point. Kind of bonkers this even needs to be said, and even then it's missed/ignored.
    - rgoulter 1y ago
      The title is provocative and attention grabbing. -- It's completely fair game to react to the provocation rather than the substance of the article itself. (Or, rather, it's silly to use attention grabbing rhetoric, then complain that people paid attention to the rhetoric). I'd prefer instead a more balanced title like "Remember to Consider the Costs When Using Package Managers", or whatever.
      - gingerBill 1y ago
        The title of the article comes from the direct words I said in the video, of which the article is effectively a polished transcription of. Your "more balanced title" isn't even close to what I am saying. I am saying that Package Managers are just bad and should not be used. Not "remember to consider the costs". The net cost is bad for everyone, that's why I said "evil".
      - 1GZ0 1y ago
        > It's completely fair game to react to the provocation rather than the substance of the article itself. Yeah, but its down right stupid to do so. The title isn't even misleading or part of a Motte-and-bailey argument. People just hear "Package Managers are Evil" and assume that the author means you shouldn't use third party dependencies. Which is NOT what's being argued. But I guess you'd know that, if you read passed the title.
rob74 1y ago
Sure... and, to prove your point, Go has a package manager too (although it's a relatively new addition). But Go still follows a "batteries included" approach, where "standard" stuff (yes, even database handling) is handled by the standard library. Which still leaves lots of other things for which you need third party packages, but those will be typically far fewer than in other languages.
torginus 1y ago
I think the argument presented, is that whatever a Go package does, it does well. Btw the Js ecosystem also has quite a few good packages (and a ton of terrible ones, including some which everyone seems to consider as the gold standard).
coldtea 1y ago
To me, this whole comment just screams inability to steelman.

by smw 1y ago

kunley 1y ago

Inexperience of an author who develops quite successful programming language for like 10 years? Quite a bold statement. Actually his perspective is quite reasonable. Go is in the other part of the spectrum than languages encouraging "left-pad"-type of libraries, and this is a good thing.

Ygg2 1y ago
I've seen plenty of intelligent people acting pretty stupid. As my psychology professor used to say. "Smart is how efficiently use your intelligence. Or don't." So someone pretty low IQ can be smart - Forrest Gump. Or someone high IQ can be dumb occasionally - a professor so very attuned to his research topic at expense of everything else.
- kunley 1y ago
  How is this relating to the alleged inexperience of the original author? Not sure what do you mean.
  - drzaiusx11 1y ago
    The above comment is merely pointing out that a 10y+ experienced language designer can still have naive viewpoints on application development. Anyone who's built a non-trivial userspace application knows that realistically you'll have to reach outside a particular languages standard library in most cases to provide value without reinventing wheels. In other words: when someone's knowledge is disproportionately localized/siloed to their prospective subfield or domain of expertise, it does not necessitate generalization to others. I'm certainly not saying this is the case with this particular individual, as I'm personally not familiar with their background. I'm simply stating that it's a plausible explanation for when experts in one domain make naive assertions about another domain they might not have the same experience in.
    - kunley 1y ago
      I don't buy it. A guy designing and then implementing a programming language has a much bigger chance to put a lot of rational thinking into the tooling like dependency manager, than a typical language consumer, who can and often is easily falling into the languages emo wars.
      - Ygg2 1y ago
        > than a typical language consumer, who can and often is easily falling into the languages emo wars. How is ginger bill excluded from this group? No one is more invested in a language than its creator(s). Sure, he might have given it a lot of thought, but he came up with some completely bonkers conclusions. If you don't want dependencies, DON'T IMPORT DEPENDENCIES. Don't make your dependencies extremely hard to add.
        gingerBill 1y ago
        I have? Pray tell.
        Ygg2 1y ago
        Have what? Heavily invested in language you're building? I think that's a given. Not clear-headed about this? https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1nbkwzt/package_managers_are_evil/nd341ku/ https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1nbkwzt/packag... > gingerbill[S] 1 point 2 hours ago > So a tool that enables evil is not an evil tool? See counterpoint: hammers, freezers, cars, arrows, guns, bombs, planes, etc. Each of them *can* enable evil. Same way a package manager *can* enable sprawling dependency list.
        gingerBill 1y ago
        You see you just completely missed my replies to that too. > Let's put it this way, what does a package manager specifically (not the other distinctions I make in the article) do (other than enable bad laziness and lack of proper vetting) that is actually good? https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1nbkwzt/package_managers_are_evil/nd397ul/ https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1nbkwzt/packag...
- gingerBill 1y ago
  Thank you?
tialaramex 1y ago
Is it "quite successful"? How would I distinguish such a "quite successful" language from say Hare or V or are these all "successful" in your mind?
- gingerBill 1y ago
  I know very few people using Hare, especially since it only works on "FOSS platforms". And I will still maintain that V is vapourware. They still have the same false claims on the website that they've had from the beginning for ~6 years. Odin is "successful enough" so far. Also, you know about it, so that says something.
  - tialaramex 1y ago
    I know about Hare and V too, so, then what exactly does it say for me to know about a programming language? Not much. I have technically written more Odin than Hare (one Godbolt example, arguably two if you count my explaining how to modify the example to illustrate another problem) but that just means I have more justification to say I don't like it. I've written a lot more Scheme and I had so thoroughly forgotten writing Scheme that I had to go read the source for myself when I got email about it decades later to be sure it wasn't just a coincidence of author names. I'm not convinced there is space for any of the "C successor" languages in the twenty-first century and in the event space is made or given for one I doubt there'll somehow be room for more. So with today's field I would bet on Zig.
    - gingerBill 1y ago
      Odin is not trying to be a "C successor" rather as the website states: "Odin is the C alternative for the Joy of Programming". And there doesn't have to be "one winner". This isn't Highlander. It is just wonderful that there is now choice in this domain beyond just the old and obvious.
- kunley 1y ago
  Why the need for distinguishing and an urge for comparison? We're talking about Odin, that's it. As a project that (as I understand) didn't have any big corp investment, it's impressive.
user____name 1y ago
Not to mention we've have had decades of software development without automated package managers and people did just fine.

1GZ0 1y ago

The Author isn't arguing for not using third party dependencies. He's arguing for developers to be more conscious of the dependencies they use, by manually vetting and handling them. That screams "I've been down the package manager route and paid the price". Not inexperience.

pipes 1y ago
But titled the post "package managers are evil"
- Defletter 1y ago
  > The term “evil” is being used partially hyperbolic to make a point. Kind of bonkers this even needs to be said, and even then it's missed/ignored.
  - rgoulter 1y ago
    The title is provocative and attention grabbing. -- It's completely fair game to react to the provocation rather than the substance of the article itself. (Or, rather, it's silly to use attention grabbing rhetoric, then complain that people paid attention to the rhetoric). I'd prefer instead a more balanced title like "Remember to Consider the Costs When Using Package Managers", or whatever.
    - gingerBill 1y ago
      The title of the article comes from the direct words I said in the video, of which the article is effectively a polished transcription of. Your "more balanced title" isn't even close to what I am saying. I am saying that Package Managers are just bad and should not be used. Not "remember to consider the costs". The net cost is bad for everyone, that's why I said "evil".
    - 1GZ0 1y ago
      > It's completely fair game to react to the provocation rather than the substance of the article itself. Yeah, but its down right stupid to do so. The title isn't even misleading or part of a Motte-and-bailey argument. People just hear "Package Managers are Evil" and assume that the author means you shouldn't use third party dependencies. Which is NOT what's being argued. But I guess you'd know that, if you read passed the title.

rob74 1y ago

Sure... and, to prove your point, Go has a package manager too (although it's a relatively new addition). But Go still follows a "batteries included" approach, where "standard" stuff (yes, even database handling) is handled by the standard library. Which still leaves lots of other things for which you need third party packages, but those will be typically far fewer than in other languages.

torginus 1y ago

I think the argument presented, is that whatever a Go package does, it does well. Btw the Js ecosystem also has quite a few good packages (and a ton of terrible ones, including some which everyone seems to consider as the gold standard).

coldtea 1y ago

To me, this whole comment just screams inability to steelman.