From: Luke Kanies Date: 02:12 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: RubyGems deciding version formats I currently spend all my time in Ruby, but I fortunately don't have to deal much with RubyGems. I say fortunately, because, like all software, it's hate-worthy. I personally think it's a bit more hate- worthy than it should be, and here's an example. Some people run released versions of my software. Some people use the software directly from Subversion. It's important to know which they're using when they're filing bugs, so I want some way to differentiate them. So, reasonably, I add 'svn' on to my version number. *I* don't mind. Ruby doesn't mind. But oh now, RubyGems declares that I cannot have a version number that looks like that: Malformed version number string 0.20.0-svn Yeah, thanks. This means I can't even use my Rakefile for anything, because it can't even create the gem task (which it always does, even if it won't be executing it). Stupid gems.
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 07:42 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 20:12 -0600, Luke Kanies wrote: > I currently spend all my time in Ruby, but I fortunately don't have > to deal much with RubyGems. I say fortunately, because, like all > software, it's hate-worthy. I personally think it's a bit more hate- > worthy than it should be, and here's an example. > > Some people run released versions of my software. Some people use > the software directly from Subversion. It's important to know which > they're using when they're filing bugs, so I want some way to > differentiate them. So, reasonably, I add 'svn' on to my version > number. > > *I* don't mind. Ruby doesn't mind. But oh now, RubyGems declares > that I cannot have a version number that looks like that: > > Malformed version number string 0.20.0-svn > > Yeah, thanks. > > This means I can't even use my Rakefile for anything, because it > can't even create the gem task (which it always does, even if it > won't be executing it). Stupid gems. So I've not even attempted to do any ruby programming. But I have done endless amounts of programming in a dozen other languages. That post was meaningless gibberish to me. I find it difficult to believe that ruby has come up with such completely new concepts that no-one else has ever even thought of that it needs to invent its own natural language extensions just to talk about them. Hates-mindless-software-obfuscation. Martin.
From: Patrick Quinn-Graham Date: 07:47 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On 9-Nov-06, at 11:42 PM, Martin Ebourne wrote: > So I've not even attempted to do any ruby programming. But I have done > endless amounts of programming in a dozen other languages. > > That post was meaningless gibberish to me. I find it difficult to > believe that ruby has come up with such completely new concepts that > no-one else has ever even thought of that it needs to invent its own > natural language extensions just to talk about them. Uh, you're hating ruby for calling it's package management system "RubyGems"? That's like hating perl for CPAN or php for whatever it is php has. Now obviously CPAN is hate-worthy, but not for it's name, surely. And Rakefile... um, makefile? But not, because a makefile is for make? Surely this is misdirected hate...
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 07:53 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 23:47 -0800, Patrick Quinn-Graham wrote: > Uh, you're hating ruby for calling it's package management system > "RubyGems"? That's like hating perl for CPAN or php for whatever it > is php has. Now obviously CPAN is hate-worthy, but not for it's name, > surely. > > And Rakefile... um, makefile? But not, because a makefile is for make? > > Surely this is misdirected hate... Maybe so in this case. I guess they didn't have 'RPM' available to them for starters. :) I do generally tire of the industry repeatedly trying to hide old concepts behind new names though. And I also hate the fact that every scripting language these days seems to feel the need to have its own package manager. There's enough of the damn things with the different OS's without every language piling in with one (or 2 in the case of php) of its own. CPAN is great as a website, and that's where it should have stayed. Cheers, Martin.
From: demerphq Date: 10:22 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On 11/10/06, Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote: > CPAN is great as a website, and that's where it should have stayed. The web site came AFTER. Yves
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 10:34 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats demerphq <demerphq@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 11/10/06, Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote: >> CPAN is great as a website, and that's where it should have stayed. > > The web site came AFTER. Heck, I never liked history anyway. But at least they're headed in the right direction then. Cheers, Martin.
From: Nik Clayton Date: 10:33 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats Luke Kanies wrote: > I currently spend all my time in Ruby, but I fortunately don't have to > deal much with RubyGems. I say fortunately, because, like all software, > it's hate-worthy. I personally think it's a bit more hate-worthy than > it should be, and here's an example. > > Some people run released versions of my software. Some people use the > software directly from Subversion. It's important to know which they're > using when they're filing bugs, so I want some way to differentiate > them. So, reasonably, I add 'svn' on to my version number. > > *I* don't mind. Ruby doesn't mind. But oh now, RubyGems declares that > I cannot have a version number that looks like that: > > Malformed version number string 0.20.0-svn Not to diminish your hate, but that's a pretty poor version number. For a start, You need special knowledge to compare it against other version numbers. Why not have a version number and a build number? Use the repo revision number as the build number, make it accessible, and have your users report the build number when they report bugs. N
From: jrodman Date: 10:47 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 10:33:28AM +0000, Nik Clayton wrote: > Luke Kanies wrote: > >*I* don't mind. Ruby doesn't mind. But oh now, RubyGems declares that > >I cannot have a version number that looks like that: > > > >Malformed version number string 0.20.0-svn > > Not to diminish your hate, but that's a pretty poor version number. For a > start, You need special knowledge to compare it against other version > numbers. Perhaps I have been poisoned by dpkg, but the sort order of such a version number seems obvious to me. I suppose it might be wrong though. I can't put my finger on why I hate build numbers so much. It seems like somehow they end up replacing normal version numbers, and then you're stuck with the same crap like giving your social security number to identify yourself to a bank. -josh
From: Roger Burton West Date: 10:52 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 02:47:14AM -0800, jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: >Perhaps I have been poisoned by dpkg, but the sort order of such a >version number seems obvious to me. I suppose it might be wrong though. I still take the approach that if you're going to call it a "number" it should only have one decimal point in it, and no letters or punctuation. >I can't put my finger on why I hate build numbers so much. They're what happened when version numbers got taken over by the marketing department, and then later someone noticed that being able to distinguish between different minor versions of the same software was still useful. R
From: David Cantrell Date: 14:30 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote: > This means I can't even use my Rakefile ... Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make itself is hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken version to put up with thankyounotverymuchatallyoubastards.
From: Philip Newton Date: 14:40 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On 11/10/06, David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote: > > > This means I can't even use my Rakefile ... > > Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make itself is > hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken version to > put up with thankyounotverymuchatallyoubastards. perldoc Module::Builder
From: David Cantrell Date: 15:09 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 03:40:42PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: > On 11/10/06, David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote: > >Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make itself is > >hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken version to > >put up with thankyounotverymuchatallyoubastards. > perldoc Module::Builder Yes, I am quite familiar with that hateful thing as well. Just because us perl people have decided to reinvent it doesn't mean everyone else should follow on and make the same mistakes.
From: Sean O'Rourke Date: 14:43 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> writes: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote: > >> This means I can't even use my Rakefile ... > > Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? It seems to be a universal urge: Module::Build, Sconstruct, ... And yes, it is enormously hateful. Just be glad people haven't (that I know of) started using Rake (gag) to build project not written in Ruby. /s
From: Stephen Deken Date: 14:54 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On 11/10/06, Sean O'Rourke <sorourke@xx.xxxx.xxx> wrote: > It seems to be a universal urge: Module::Build, Sconstruct, ... > And yes, it is enormously hateful. Just be glad people haven't > (that I know of) started using Rake (gag) to build project not > written in Ruby. The name `rake` is just wrong, nomenclature-wise. It's not related to `make` in any way except general function -- the file format is different, the actions are different, the intent is different. Since it's bound more tightly to `ruby` than `make`, why not stick with the crystal theme and call it something like `lattice` ? Whenever I see `rake` or `rakefile`, I think of: 1. A zen monk in a garden, quietly raking the sand 2. How Scooby-Doo would pronounce `make` 3. ... by this time I've usually passed out. --sjd;
From: Stephen Deken Date: 15:21 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On 11/10/06, Sean O'Rourke <sorourke@xx.xxxx.xxx> wrote: > And end up further into the other Great Ruby Hate of giving > programs "clever" names you'll never guess? Does the library > dealing with X have X in its name, or is it named something > "cute" and impossible to find, like "sediment" or "ant"? To be fair, Ruby didn't start this. Java did the same thing with JavaBeans, albeit with a lesser degree of hate. At least `jar` wasn't named `coffeecan`. But I agree -- I don't see what would have been so bad about `ruby-pkg` or `ruby-build`. --sjd;
From: David Cantrell Date: 15:32 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 09:21:49AM -0600, Stephen Deken wrote: > On 11/10/06, Sean O'Rourke <sorourke@xx.xxxx.xxx> wrote: > >And end up further into the other Great Ruby Hate of giving > >programs "clever" names you'll never guess? Does the library > >dealing with X have X in its name, or is it named something > >"cute" and impossible to find, like "sediment" or "ant"? > To be fair, Ruby didn't start this. Java did the same thing with > JavaBeans, albeit with a lesser degree of hate. At least `jar` wasn't > named `coffeecan`. The rot set in far far earlier, with 'awt' and 'swing'. Neither name cries out "widget set" to me. Thankfully, all the Java books I've seen seem to think that writing GUI apps is the be-all and end-all of programming, and so tell you about these things in the first few pages. I expect that both awt and swing have now been deprecated, as they're at least five minutes old and so are hopelessly uncool. Their replacement is probably called something obvious like 'doublelattemocha' or 'Brian'.
From: Sean O'Rourke Date: 15:40 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> writes: > The rot set in far far earlier, with 'awt' and 'swing'. Neither name > cries out "widget set" to me. To be fair, both are acronyms: "Advanced Widget Toolkit" and "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay". hth, /s
From: David Cantrell Date: 15:44 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 07:40:23AM -0800, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > To be fair Wrong list.
From: Phil!Gregory Date: 17:34 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats * Sean O'Rourke <sorourke@xx.xxxx.xxx> [2006-11-10 07:40 -0800]: > To be fair, both are acronyms: "Advanced Widget Toolkit" and > "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay". And "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay" isn't a horrid name for a widget library?
From: jrodman Date: 18:21 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:34:10PM -0500, Phil!Gregory wrote: > * Sean O'Rourke <sorourke@xx.xxxx.xxx> [2006-11-10 07:40 -0800]: > > To be fair, both are acronyms: "Advanced Widget Toolkit" and > > "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay". > > And "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay" isn't a horrid name for a widget > library? A google search suggests this was a newly made-up joke. Is it? -josh
From: Claes Jakobsson Date: 21:01 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On 10 nov 2006, at 16.40, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> writes: >> The rot set in far far earlier, with 'awt' and 'swing'. Neither name >> cries out "widget set" to me. > > To be fair, both are acronyms: "Advanced Widget Toolkit" and > "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay". > > hth, > /s Actually AWT stands for "Abstract Window Toolkit". Could this be because it sucks so much and does so little that you have to subclass it whether you want it or not? http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/awt/index.html /Claes
From: Sean O'Rourke Date: 21:14 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats Claes Jakobsson <claes@xxxxxx.xx> writes: > Actually AWT stands for "Abstract Window Toolkit". Oh... It's abstract, so it *must* be good! > Could this be because it sucks so much and does so little that > you have to subclass it whether you want it or not? Well, it reminds you that Everything Is An Object (TM). /s
From: A. Pagaltzis
Date: 09:18 on 11 Nov 2006
Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats
* Claes Jakobsson <claes@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-11-10 22:05]:
> Actually AWT stands for "Abstract Window Toolkit". Could this
> be because it sucks so much and does so little that you have to
> subclass it whether you want it or not?
Is it abstract, or is it *indirect*?
Indirection Is Not Abstraction
http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/indirection_is_not_abstraction.html
Regards,
From: Peter da Silva Date: 13:35 on 11 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Nov 11, 2006, at 3:18 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/indirection_is_not_abstraction.html Yes! That "abstraction isn't implementation" rant is a great condensation of my frustration with GUI APIs and network APIs over the years. I've been talking about this same distinction, but I hadn't been able to condense the distinction down far enough... I'd referred to indirect interfaces as the "mainframe era approach" to the problem, and the abstract interface as the "UNIX era" one, because for me the switch from the mainframe style way of doing simple things like opening files by creating file control blocks, finding the catalog table and the access method and so on to the UNIX way of calling "open" with the name of the file was an epiphany. The UNIX developers found or assembled a collection of abstractions that swept away thousands of indirect interfaces and replaced them with twenty or so system calls. Wonderful! Finding a good abstraction is hard. Trying to find one is a recipe for disaster, because if you mess up you can lock yourself into a box. But it's so necessary.
From: jrodman Date: 16:28 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 03:32:25PM +0000, David Cantrell wrote: > I expect that both awt and swing have now been deprecated, as > they're at least five minutes old and so are hopelessly uncool. > Their replacement is probably called something obvious like > 'doublelattemocha' or 'Brian'. Given your name suggestion, I assume you've already seen this, but I'm going to mention it anyway on the possibility that you might not have: There is a software package called "Double Choco Latte". What does it do? Does it make drinks? Does it foam? Maybe it froths. It isn't written in Java, so I don't know if that counts for or against the stupid name, but it is written in PHP, so you know it's gotta be trash. Highlights: the phrase "GNU Enterprise", a charter as vague as "project management", and an overly baroque datamodel that's sure to map poorly to many (most?) projects, as well as be too complex for others. http://dcl.sourceforge.net/ -josh
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 14:52 on 11 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats Stephen Deken wrote: > On 11/10/06, Sean O'Rourke <sorourke@xx.xxxx.xxx> wrote: >> It seems to be a universal urge: Module::Build, Sconstruct, ... >> And yes, it is enormously hateful. Just be glad people haven't >> (that I know of) started using Rake (gag) to build project not >> written in Ruby. > > The name `rake` is just wrong, nomenclature-wise. It's not related to > `make` in any way except general function -- the file format is > different, the actions are different, the intent is different. Since I do remember reading somewhere at the end of eighties/beginning of nineties a document describing a make replacement called "bake"... > it's bound more tightly to `ruby` than `make`, why not stick with the > crystal theme and call it something like `lattice` ?
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 20:24 on 11 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats * Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@xxx.xx> [2006-11-11 15:55]: > I do remember reading somewhere at the end of > eighties/beginning of nineties a document describing a make > replacement called "bake"... That's probably neither the one in Python nor the one in OCaml? There have probably been at least half a dozen different make replacements called "bake"... ObHate: program names consisting of a single ordinary/common word. Makes using search engines a hemorrhoidal pain. (Eg. try finding pages that don't refer to screen(1) it as "GNU Screen.") Regards,
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 21:58 on 11 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@xxx.xx> [2006-11-11 15:55]: >> I do remember reading somewhere at the end of >> eighties/beginning of nineties a document describing a make >> replacement called "bake"... > > That's probably neither the one in Python nor the one in OCaml? No, this was in C, Perl 4-era, before Linux. > There have probably been at least half a dozen different make > replacements called "bake"... >
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 15:45 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats > David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> writes: > > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote: > >> This means I can't even use my Rakefile ... > > Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? > It seems to be a universal urge: Module::Build, Sconstruct, ... > And yes, it is enormously hateful. Just be glad people haven't > (that I know of) started using Rake (gag) to build project not > written in Ruby. Maybe they could write an Ant implementation in Ruby... called Rant.
From: Dave Hodgkinson Date: 15:22 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On 10 Nov 2006, at 14:30, David Cantrell wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote: > >> This means I can't even use my Rakefile ... > > Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make > itself is > hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken > version to > put up with thankyounotverymuchatallyoubastards. > Ruh-roh Raggy...
From: Luke Kanies Date: 17:02 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats On Nov 10, 2006, at 8:30 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > > Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make > itself is > hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken > version to > put up with thankyounotverymuchatallyoubastards. Well, for the record, rake is significantly less hateful than make, but yeah, they're marginally similar in concept. Having heavily abused make in my time, I'd far prefer to abuse rake, and given the choice between accomplishing a given task in either tool, I'd take rake any day of the week, thanks. In fact, in general, rake is not only low on hate, it's somewhat inspiring in forcing you to think about Ruby a bit differently.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 18:13 on 10 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats * Luke Kanies <luke@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-11-10 18:05]: > Having heavily abused make in my time, I'd far prefer to abuse > rake, and given the choice between accomplishing a given task > in either tool, I'd take rake any day of the week, thanks. I can vouch for that. In fact, rake might be the killer app that gets me to seriously get into Ruby at all. The only thing in Perl-land that is at all comparable is Cons; and well, let us not speak of Cons. (Module::Build is a completely different kind of thing and not at all comparable.) Regards,
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi