←back to thread

277 points amazonhut | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.397s | source
Show context
untrimmed ◴[] No.45248154[source]
As someone who has spent days wrestling with Python dependency hell just to get a model running, a simple cargo run feels like a dream. But I'm wondering, what was the most painful part of NOT having a framework? I'm betting my coffee money it was debugging the backpropagation logic.
replies(5): >>45248223 #>>45248315 #>>45248416 #>>45248640 #>>45248972 #
taminka ◴[] No.45248223[source]
lowkey ppl who praise cargo seem to have no idea of the tradeoffs involved in dependency management

the difficulty of including a dependency should be proportional to the risk you're taking on, meaning it shouldn't be as difficult as it in, say, C where every other library is continually reinventing the same 5 utilities, but also not as easy as it is with npm or cargo, because you get insane dependency clutter, and all the related issues like security, build times, etc

how good a build system isn't equivalent of how easy it is include a dependency, while modern languages should have a consistent build system, but having a centralised package repository that anyone freely pull to/from, and having those dependencies freely take on any number of other dependencies is a bad way to handle dependencies

replies(8): >>45248396 #>>45248405 #>>45248468 #>>45248509 #>>45248523 #>>45248580 #>>45249844 #>>45250869 #
dev_l1x_be ◴[] No.45248523[source]
> lowkey ppl who praise cargo seem to have no idea

Way to go on insulting people on HN. Cargo is literally the reason why people coming to Rust from languages like C++ where the lack of standardized tooling is giant glaring bomb crater that poses burden on people every single time they need to do some basic things (like for example version upgrades).

Example:

https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/main/build.sh

replies(2): >>45248572 #>>45249051 #
taminka ◴[] No.45249051[source]
i'm saying that ease of dependency inclusion should not be a main criterion for evaluating how good a build system is, not that it isn't the main criterion for many people...

like the entire point of my comment is that people have misguided criteria for evaluating build systems, and your comment seems to just affirm this?

replies(3): >>45249336 #>>45249342 #>>45250334 #
1. Sl1mb0 ◴[] No.45249342[source]
> dependency inclusion _should not_ be a main criterion for evaluating how good a build system is

That's just like, your opinion, man.

replies(2): >>45249526 #>>45250431 #
2. taminka ◴[] No.45249526[source]
i mean, unless you have some absolute divine truths, that's kind of the best i have :shrug
3. lutusp ◴[] No.45250431[source]
> That's just like, your opinion, man.

I would love to know how many younger readers recognize this classic movie reference.