9 ms·

> Every language which needs a "package manager" tends to make building standalone applications painful. Huh? Python has a (sort of) package manager and you ca

> Every language which needs a "package manager" tends to make building standalone applications painful. Huh? Python has a (sort of) package manager and you can still make a standalone application by bundling every dependency. You are very certainly mistaking the OS-level package manager (used primarily for installing applications) from the language-level package manager (used primarily for building applications). Once you have built a standalone binary, the job of the language-level package manager is done. > However, C++ is a platform agnostic language, while Rust thus far has only supported Linux as a first class platform. I find the attitude of the Rust devs ("we will improve Windows support once the language is stable") deeply misguided. It meant that they largely missed out on feedback from Windows developers during the development of the language. "Windows developers" also means all the AAA PC(+console) game developers (the most diehard C++ users). Linux still is not a relevant platform there. I regularly use Rust (nightly) in Windows. Windows support is problematic since it differs from every other major platform, but it did not have a serious problem that seriously discourages the Windows platform. (Not to mention that I regularly build a standalone binary for Windows!) I admit it is not in the best state, but it should be improved and is being improved. > And the Rust developers seem to continue to go down that rabbit hole by enlisting Ruby developers to develop a "package manager". As a Windows guy the very word makes me cringe. How is that thing going to integrate with Visual Studio and other Windows specific concerns? Ruby only really works on Linux, first advice you get as a Windows guy wanting to learn Ruby is "Install Linux, if you try to do Ruby development on Windows you are in for a world of pain". I do not trust any Ruby developer to write portable software, they are married to the GNU/Linux ecosystem. Would you expect Microsoft guys to develop something which actually works well on Linux? As a multiplatform guy the introduction of package manager actually marks the divorce with the strong Unix assumption, since Rust has actively avoided the platform-dependent tools so much that it now does not require the C compiler at all (!) and the only remaining platform-dependent tool was the Make. This is now about to change. > Also remember that C++ does not have a "package manager". Some of the most complex and massive applications in the world are written in C++, yet you do not hear many C++ developers crying "When will we finally get a package manager?". It is not even on the agenda. C does not have one either. That's why SQLite ships with an amalgamated source code, a sort of unfortunate thing. Dependency problem is so bad in C/C++ that most developers gave up and grew the half-baked solutions, which have another share of problems.

copx 13y ago
>Huh? Python has a (sort of) package manager and you can still make a standalone application You can (try) yes. Have you tried it? I have. It was a horrible experience. Support for making standalone binaries is an afterthought in the Python world. It is usually not a simple process that "just works" (on Windows in particular). >I regularly use Rust (nightly) in Windows I know a guy who managed to write a game in Ruby and somehow turned the code into standalone Windows binaries. I know that Rust can be used on Windows, that you can use it to build standalone binaries, that is not the point. The point is how well, idiomatically, and smoothly that works. >Windows support is problematic since it differs from every other major platform If you do not consider consoles or embedded systems major platforms that is. Most of the world is not POSIX. >does not require the C compiler at all The last time I tried to use Rust on Windows it required a particular version of MinGW. >Dependency problem is so bad in C/C++ I have used C and C++ for a long time, and I cannot say that dependency hell was ever a problem. One of the many things wrong with the "package manager" paradigm is that it encourages people to write software which is a tangled web of dependencies. Software should have few third-party dependencies, that makes maintenance and porting a lot easier. Witness the recent Python 2 -> 3 drama. The primary reason why people did not, could not upgrade to Python 3 was because they had to wait for all the dependencies of their apps to be ported. Many are still waiting.
- lifthrasiir 13y ago
  > Have you tried it? I have. It was a horrible experience. Support for making standalone binaries is an afterthought in the Python world. It is usually not a simple process that "just works" (on Windows in particular). > I know a guy who managed to write a game in Ruby and somehow turned the code into standalone Windows binaries. I know that Rust can be used on Windows, that you can use it to build standalone binaries, that is not the point. The point is how well, idiomatically, and smoothly that works. I've done it many times, and it is not quite bad to do that (it can even give a single executable file at some initial slowdown). In fact, it is so impressive that the non-compiled implementation can make a working and portable executable file at all. Rust is primarily a (ahead-of-time) compiled language and it would take a single command `rustc foo.rs` (or possibly `rustc -L<deps> foo.rs`?) to produce an executable file `foo.exe`. [1] [1] Assuming you haven't used 0.9 and later versions, it now produces a statically linked binary by default. No `libblahblabla.dll` around. > If you do not consider consoles or embedded systems major platforms that is. Most of the world is not POSIX. It really depends on the definition (and I'm not saying POSIX is not the most widely available platform), but mobiles alone (approx. 300 million units sold) give a significant portion of POSIX systems. > The last time I tried to use Rust on Windows it required a particular version of MinGW. You haven't used 0.9, right? That restriction was temporary and it has now lifted. I think you still need MinGW for linkers right now though. > I have used C and C++ for a long time, and I cannot say that dependency hell was ever a problem. One of the many things wrong with the "package manager" paradigm is that it encourages people to write software which is a tangled web of dependencies. Software should have few third-party dependencies, that makes maintenance and porting a lot easier. Witness the recent Python 2 -> 3 drama. The primary reason why people did not, could not upgrade to Python 3 was because they had to wait for all the dependencies of their apps to be ported. Many are still waiting. Python 3 is a bad choice in my opinion as it hasn't learned from the precedent of Perl 6 "failure" (this was finally resolved when Perl 5 development has been restarted). But that does not justify the C/C++'s lack of package system: there are lots of old and faulty C/C++ codes around due to the lack of recent C99 or C11 or C++11 compilers at the disposal even without the package system.

copx 13y ago

>Huh? Python has a (sort of) package manager and you can still make a standalone application You can (try) yes. Have you tried it? I have. It was a horrible experience. Support for making standalone binaries is an afterthought in the Python world. It is usually not a simple process that "just works" (on Windows in particular). >I regularly use Rust (nightly) in Windows I know a guy who managed to write a game in Ruby and somehow turned the code into standalone Windows binaries. I know that Rust can be used on Windows, that you can use it to build standalone binaries, that is not the point. The point is how well, idiomatically, and smoothly that works. >Windows support is problematic since it differs from every other major platform If you do not consider consoles or embedded systems major platforms that is. Most of the world is not POSIX. >does not require the C compiler at all The last time I tried to use Rust on Windows it required a particular version of MinGW. >Dependency problem is so bad in C/C++ I have used C and C++ for a long time, and I cannot say that dependency hell was ever a problem. One of the many things wrong with the "package manager" paradigm is that it encourages people to write software which is a tangled web of dependencies. Software should have few third-party dependencies, that makes maintenance and porting a lot easier. Witness the recent Python 2 -> 3 drama. The primary reason why people did not, could not upgrade to Python 3 was because they had to wait for all the dependencies of their apps to be ported. Many are still waiting.

lifthrasiir 13y ago
> Have you tried it? I have. It was a horrible experience. Support for making standalone binaries is an afterthought in the Python world. It is usually not a simple process that "just works" (on Windows in particular). > I know a guy who managed to write a game in Ruby and somehow turned the code into standalone Windows binaries. I know that Rust can be used on Windows, that you can use it to build standalone binaries, that is not the point. The point is how well, idiomatically, and smoothly that works. I've done it many times, and it is not quite bad to do that (it can even give a single executable file at some initial slowdown). In fact, it is so impressive that the non-compiled implementation can make a working and portable executable file at all. Rust is primarily a (ahead-of-time) compiled language and it would take a single command `rustc foo.rs` (or possibly `rustc -L<deps> foo.rs`?) to produce an executable file `foo.exe`. [1] [1] Assuming you haven't used 0.9 and later versions, it now produces a statically linked binary by default. No `libblahblabla.dll` around. > If you do not consider consoles or embedded systems major platforms that is. Most of the world is not POSIX. It really depends on the definition (and I'm not saying POSIX is not the most widely available platform), but mobiles alone (approx. 300 million units sold) give a significant portion of POSIX systems. > The last time I tried to use Rust on Windows it required a particular version of MinGW. You haven't used 0.9, right? That restriction was temporary and it has now lifted. I think you still need MinGW for linkers right now though. > I have used C and C++ for a long time, and I cannot say that dependency hell was ever a problem. One of the many things wrong with the "package manager" paradigm is that it encourages people to write software which is a tangled web of dependencies. Software should have few third-party dependencies, that makes maintenance and porting a lot easier. Witness the recent Python 2 -> 3 drama. The primary reason why people did not, could not upgrade to Python 3 was because they had to wait for all the dependencies of their apps to be ported. Many are still waiting. Python 3 is a bad choice in my opinion as it hasn't learned from the precedent of Perl 6 "failure" (this was finally resolved when Perl 5 development has been restarted). But that does not justify the C/C++'s lack of package system: there are lots of old and faulty C/C++ codes around due to the lack of recent C99 or C11 or C++11 compilers at the disposal even without the package system.