←back to thread

333 points steveklabnik | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.238s | source
Show context
jemmyw ◴[] No.45032462[source]
It looks cool but I feel this kind of tool is only useful if Ruby is the only language you use. I have to manage several runtimes for most projects. I've used asdf for years and recently switched to mise: these tools already download pre compiled binaries for Ruby, plus pretty much any other language runtime.

It's likely that you get better per language features for something specific to the language though. We end up in exactly the same kind of frustration, that for some random project you need this specific tool that does dependency management of the specific runtime. asdf and mise both respect a .tool-versions file, I'd rather see things go more in that direction with some kind of standard.

replies(4): >>45032520 #>>45032617 #>>45033002 #>>45033020 #
evolve2k ◴[] No.45032520[source]
I agree with the sentiment as I also use asdf but feel at this stage this critique of the project feels more than a little unfair.

We really don’t have the features they’ve been discussing including the npx like feature and easily just run Ruby without installer headaches that it seems they’ve gone after solving.

Reframing, id like to ask that .tool-versions be supported as a place where we can define Ruby versions. Then both tools with a little tweaking could pretty much be used side by side.

replies(1): >>45035156 #
1. jemmyw ◴[] No.45035156[source]
I don't think I really criticized the project. I said it was cool, I had a look at it. I just put down that I think there are pros and cons to the single language approach and, for me, the cons outweigh the pros.