4 ms·
Do we really need a separate package manager for every programming language? They all seem to have their own, which creates pressure to "re-implement ALL the t
by dlitz 13y ago
Do we really need a separate package manager for every programming language? They all seem to have their own, which creates pressure to "re-implement ALL the things" every time a new language becomes popular. In 2013, why can I still not declare that my C library depends on a Perl module, except on individual Linux distributions?
- fit2rule 13y agoPerhaps because the division between the language, and the filesystem, is arbitrary and drawn by OS vendors, not language users? The race is on to build an OS that is 100% completely open source, and this may as well be accomplished by the language having package management. Boot to a linux-kernel, naught but /usr/bin/lua and /usr/bin/luarocks, and a well maintained .lua archive, and you've got a very useful embedded environment. Very useful.
- dlitz 13y ago> Perhaps because the division between the language, and the filesystem, is arbitrary and drawn by OS vendors, not language users? Wow, that comment is a textbook example of this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html Look, it's really inefficient for everyone to "reimplement ALL the things" every time someone invents a new programming language. Making smart aleck comments about how "the filesystem is arbitrary" or how Lua or Emacs are operating systems doesn't change this.
- fit2rule 13y agoOh dear, I do not agree. I think you're cargo-cult'ing me out for dinner. The lines in the application-binary blob sand are clearly arbitrarily drawn. One mans OS is another mans Application. Filesystem? You don't need it.