| |
| ▲ | snickerdoodle12 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know what you're hoping to hear, but I have no idea. All I know is that with loads of Go projects I've used I can go to the releases page, download a binary and run it. And that for every .net project I can remember, which are far more rare, there's been some complicated installer that does a bunch of stuff. Or it fails to launch telling me I need to install some runtime separately. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The point is that when you happen to compile yourself Go projects, and CGO is used, you better have the C or C++ compiler toolchain installed that is compatible with Go, with the related dependencies they rely on, otherwise the build will break. But you won't be blaming Go for that, rather the devs that decided to use CGO. Likewise, when downloading some .NET project, it isn't .NET to blame, if the devs have decided they wouldn't be making use of Mono AOT, Native AOT, or single-file deployment package (with ReadyToRun). | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > The point is that when you happen to compile yourself... He made it pretty clear that he doesn't compile himself, he downloads pre-built binaries. In one case he finds that once the binary is downloaded, it just runs. In the other he finds it requires additional steps, like needing to go through an arduous installation process, before it runs. Sure, better devs can figure out how to avoid things like the aforementioned installation process. Great devs aren't limited by their tools. But pointing out that the devs attracted to that ecosystem are not very good doesn't change much. That it requires one to be good echos the "pain" assertion. If it weren't painful, even the poor devs would do it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | trenchpilgrim 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I compile and distribute a Go app using CGO targeted at non-programmers. I hand them a single EXE file and they run it. They don't need to install anything else. It's so easy. | | |
|
