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?

▲

Sl1mb0 a day ago | parent | next [-]

> dependency inclusion _should not_ be a main criterion for evaluating how good a build system is

That's just like, your opinion, man.

▲

lutusp a day ago | parent | next [-]

> That's just like, your opinion, man.

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

▲

taminka a day ago | parent | prev [-]

i mean, unless you have some absolute divine truths, that's kind of the best i have :shrug

▲

virtualritz a day ago | parent [-]

There are no truths but your opinion in this case runs counter of what 35 years developing software have taught me.

Obviously, I may be an outlier. Some crank who's just smitten by the proposal of spending his time writing code instead of trying to get a dependency (and its sub-dependencies and their sub-dependencies) to build at all (e.g. C/C++) or to have the right version that works with ALL the code that depends on it (e.g. Python).

I.e. I use cargo foremost (by a large margin) for that reason.

	▲	taminka a day ago \| parent [-]
		in my original comment i specifically mentioned that C (and C++) situation is also too extreme and not optimal...

▲

CodeMage a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Dependency management should most definitely be one of the main criteria for evaluating how good a build system is. What's misguided is intentionally opting for worse dependency management in an attempt to solve a people problem, i.e. being careless about adding dependencies to your project in circumstances when you should be careful.

▲

adwn a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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?

I think dev_l1x_be's comment is meant to imply that your believe about people having misguided criteria [for evaluation build systems] is itself misguided, and that your favored approach [that the difficulty of including a dependency should be proportional to the risk you're taking on] is also misguided.

	▲	taminka a day ago \| parent [-]
		my thesis is that negative externalities of build systems are important and i don't know how to convince of importance of externalities someone whose value system is built specifically on ignoring externalities and only factoring in immediate convenience...