| 1 |
On 09/04/2017 01:07 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> For almost all languages but Ruby (and Perl) you can take code written |
| 4 |
> against one minor version and compile it in the next minor version. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
This isn't a language issue with Ruby, it's a culture/package-management |
| 8 |
one. For a long time, it's been easy to bundle dependencies in Ruby. The |
| 9 |
result is a culture of saying "I need the version of ruby-foo that was |
| 10 |
released on my birthday that one time mercury was in retrograde, and |
| 11 |
also I'd like the version number to have a seven in it somewhere because |
| 12 |
that's my daughter's age." When two package authors come up with two |
| 13 |
different requirements like that, you end up needing *two* versions of |
| 14 |
ruby-foo installed. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Even if both packages could happily use the same, latest version of |
| 17 |
ruby-foo -- you get what upstream says in most cases. And what upstream |
| 18 |
says is usually crap, because they bundle everything and will never |
| 19 |
notice annoying incompatibilities like end-users do. |
Archives