3 ms·
Sorry to seem negative, but what does this give that traditional package managers don't? The pain of ruby versions / gem versions are often felt by developers
by p8952 12y ago
Sorry to seem negative, but what does this give that traditional package managers don't?
The pain of ruby versions / gem versions are often felt by developers who are working with various untested components.
For traditional end users a package manager hides all of this and by typing "pkgmgr install rubyapp" it will pull in stable and well tested versions of ruby plus any dependencies. Applications installed this way should just work without the user going anywhere near rubygems.
So the real value added here is for developers not having to create/manage packages? Surely this is offset by the huge number of issues that working outside of a package manager causes. No shared libraries/dependencies, no universal way to update everything, no ability to manage installations with tools such as puppet/chef, no global mirror network, no assurances of package integrity, ect.
- ikawe 12y agoMost folks using macs don't use a package manager.
- muchcomment 12y agoNot sure what you meant with _most folks_, but I'm under the impression that most people on mac, who use the Terminal on a daily basis, use homebrew as their package manager. edit: typo
- srgpqt 12y agoMost people on mac don't use the Terminal. I don't think the target audience (end users) are people who use the Terminal on a daily basis.
- FooBarWidget 12y agoActually, the target audience of Traveling Ruby is primarily users who use the terminal often. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8718614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8718614, where I explicitly mentioned Chef Solo and Heroku Toolbelt as two example use cases for Traveling Ruby. You can still use Traveling Ruby as part of a toolkit for making an app that's targeted at non-terminal-using end users. For example, by making a GUI app that shells out to a CLI engine that's written in Ruby, powered by Traveling Ruby.