| 1 |
On 9/13/19 5:19 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:58:08 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> What kind of math would convince you that an idea with all "cons" and no |
| 6 |
>> "pros" is bad? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Is "upstream tooling doesn't work without static compilation" or |
| 9 |
> "built packages tend to need exact version matching at runtime to work" |
| 10 |
> ( which necessitates massive-scale multi-slotting, where every version |
| 11 |
> of every packaged "thing" has a co-existing slot ) a problem for you? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I see it as a problem, but not one that has to be my problem. I don't |
| 15 |
see it as a foregone conclusion that we have to package every piece of |
| 16 |
software -- no matter how bad -- and distribute it with the OS that I |
| 17 |
use to do my banking. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
These languages are badly implemented, and very little of value is |
| 20 |
written in them. If their developers ever hit 2+ users, I'm sure they'll |
| 21 |
realize that everyone else was right back in the 1970s, and fix the |
| 22 |
design. But in the meantime, this stuff belongs in an overlay. Lowering |
| 23 |
our standards until they match upstream's is antithetical to how a |
| 24 |
distribution is supposed to improve my life. |
Archives