4 ms·
It would be interesting to know why this is. Are each of these dependencies really small on average? Or is there some big cascade of dependencies? Or is there a
by GlennS 13y ago
It would be interesting to know why this is. Are each of these dependencies really small on average? Or is there some big cascade of dependencies? Or is there a particular framework that's to blame?
I've had a similar issue when using the Spring Framework in Java, where including it in your project at all brings a whole host of other (often not very good) libraries in. This is a problem in Java, which doesn't have any built in capacity for loading multiple versions of the same library.
In Python, I suspect that I've been in a similar situation when using things like Pyproj, Numpy or Scipy, because those all depend on components written in C or Fortran. Perhaps next time I use any of those libraries I shall take some time to read more of the code and try to trace out what things they may be brining in.
- ddebernardy 13y ago> Are each of these dependencies really small on average? Or is there some big cascade of dependencies? Or is there a particular framework that's to blame? All of that, really. For better or worse, scores of gems have dependencies. Rails and a few popular others add large dependencies that cascade to other dependencies at that — some large, some not. It's extremely rare to run into quality gems with very few if any dependencies. (Sequel comes to mind, and that's just about the only 1st-class gem I can think of in pure Ruby.)
- chc 13y agoA lot of them really are small. There is a tendency for Ruby libraries to be separated into "core" and "feature" gems that you can pull in separately, For example, if you want to use DataMapper, you might be pulling in dm-core, dm-rails, dm-validations, dm-migrations, dm-timestamps, dm-postgres-adapter, dm-mysql-adapter, dm-is-searchable…