> Package managers are now basically a requirement for language adoption. Doing it manually is not a solution, in an automated world.

Absolute nonsense. What does automated world even mean? Even if one could infer reasonably, it's no justification. Appealing to "the real world" in lieu of any further consideration is exactly the kind of mindlessness that has led to the present state of affairs.

Automation of dependency versions was never something we needed it was always a convenience, and even that's a stretch given that dependency hell is abundant in all of these systems, and now we have supply chain attacks. While everyone is welcome to do as they please, I'm going to stick to vendoring my dependencies, statically compiling, and not blindly trusting code I haven't seen before.

▲

nailer 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Automation of dependency versions was never something we needed

How do you handle updating dependencies then?

▲

PedroBatista 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Relax, while mentioning the real world without any criticism for the soundness of the solution is absolute nonsense, some would say idiotic, thinking only in the absolute best solution given your narrow world view is not any better.

	▲	hresvelgr 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		While I agree that my view is narrow, the "best solution" in question is what we used to do, and it was fine. There are still many places that manually manage dependencies. Fundamentally automatic software versioning is an under-developed area in need of attention, and technologies like semantic versioning which are ubiquitous are closer to suggestions, and not true indicators of breaking changes. My personal view is that fully automatic dependency version management is an ongoing experiment and should be treated as such.

▲

pjc50 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What does automated world even mean?

People are trying to automate the act of programming itself, with AI, let alone all the bits and pieces of build processes and maintenance.