←back to thread

A critique of package managers

(www.gingerbill.org)
109 points gingerBill | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
spacebanana7 ◴[] No.45167772[source]
> "This is the automation of dependency hell. The problem is that not everything needs to be automated, especially hell. Dependency hell is a real thing which anyone who has worked on a large project has experienced. Projects having thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dependencies where you don’t know if they work properly, where are the bugs, you don’t how anything is being handled—it’s awful.

This the wrong thing to automate. You can do this manually, however it doesn’t stop you getting into hell, rather just slow you down, as you can put yourself into hell (in fact everyone puts themselves into hell voluntarily). The point is it makes you think how you get there, so if you have to download manually, you will start thinking “maybe I don’t want this” or “maybe I can do this instead”. And when you need to update packages, being manual forces you to be very careful."

I sympathise with this, but I have to respond that we have to live within existing ecosystems. Getting rid of npm and doing things manually won't make building SPAs have fewer dependencies, build would be incredibly slow and painful.

replies(5): >>45167807 #>>45167944 #>>45167982 #>>45168021 #>>45169142 #
1. microtherion ◴[] No.45168021[source]
Some years ago, I had to reproduce a neural model build that had only been done previously by a single colleague on her laptop, not using a package manager.

Part of my reproducing the build was to conduct all the library downloading in a miniconda environment, so at the end I had a reproducible recipe.

Is the original author seriously claiming that anybody was better off with the original, "pure" ad-hoc approach?