There has been a long running thread on the Go list about needing a package manager, the nay sayers claim there is need for one as Go source can import packages from Git (also Mercurial, and also Bazaar) repositories. Someone posting this about Rust just to keep the discussion going I think.

The news does validate putting effort into Dub for D codes.
-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Am 22.03.2014 15:36, schrieb Russel Winder:
> There has been a long running thread on the Go list about needing a
> package manager, the nay sayers claim there is need for one as Go source
> can import packages from Git (also Mercurial, and also Bazaar)
> repositories. Someone posting this about Rust just to keep the
> discussion going I think.
>
> The news does validate putting effort into Dub for D codes.
>

I was following the discussion as well, but gave up to post there as I
see just a waste of time against religious arguments.

From what I have been following, Go's community thinks everyone should distribute packages as source code with source control paths as import
statements. Thus binding the packages to specific source control repositories.

With no way of specifying versions and forcing developers to store
source code of all dependencies, while doing search-and-replace to change import paths.

Not to mention static linking as only means, which leaves out licenses like LGPL.

If the naysayer win, I see a hard time for Go to gain any traction in the majority of corporations.

Dub was a very good decision.

--
Paulo

On 3/22/14, 7:36 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> There has been a long running thread on the Go list about needing a
> package manager, the nay sayers claim there is need for one as Go source
> can import packages from Git (also Mercurial, and also Bazaar)
> repositories. Someone posting this about Rust just to keep the
> discussion going I think.
>
> The news does validate putting effort into Dub for D codes.

Totally agree! -- Andrei

On Saturday, 22 March 2014 at 16:23:31 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Dub was a very good decision.
>

The logo is... unfortunate. As in, OGC-level unfortunate.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=OGC

Cannot unsee.

On Sunday, 23 March 2014 at 10:01:32 UTC, Messenger wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 March 2014 at 16:23:31 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Dub was a very good decision.
>>
>
> The logo is... unfortunate. As in, OGC-level unfortunate.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=OGC
>
> Cannot unsee.

I was perfectly fine not noticing that. Now I can't help but notice it.

On 22/03/2014 14:36, Russel Winder wrote:
> There has been a long running thread on the Go list about needing a
> package manager, the nay sayers claim there is need for one as Go source
> can import packages from Git (also Mercurial, and also Bazaar)
> repositories. Someone posting this about Rust just to keep the
> discussion going I think.
>
> The news does validate putting effort into Dub for D codes.
>

Very interesting stuff!

In particular, note this quote from one of the Rust guys, from the Rust package manager announcement:
"I'm really glad that Mozilla and the Rust team are prioritizing package management. An open source language ecosystem really lives or dies based on how easy it is to share code, and writing a world-class package manager (as brson put it) takes time, especially when you account for the inevitable and important iteration that comes from real-world usage."
It's dead right!

Contrast this the apparently pedestrian (as Andrei likes to say) attitude of the Go guys... Why do they reject a package manager? I can understand not prioritizing that task very much, but to downright say "there is need for one"? Even if Go source can import packages for VCSs, I can't say that is sophisticated enough to count as a package manager (no version dependencies, etc.).
There is also the problem of only allowing open-source dependencies, as was mentioned. But perhaps that limitation might be purposefully intended? If there are influential Free-Software zealots in the Go community (are there?), they might actively favor a "package management" system that prevents or discourages non-open-source software. In that case, there might not be lack of technical vision at play, but rather just a political agenda.

(Note: I'm basing this on what has been said here regarding Go... I haven't checked the Go discussions myself, so that's why I wonder what their motivation is)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros

Interesting project: write a Go package manager in D. The reaction would be hilarious, if nothing else.

On Sunday, 30 March 2014 at 11:49:43 UTC, logicchains wrote:
> Interesting project: write a Go package manager in D. The reaction would be hilarious, if nothing else.

For an added bonus extend dub to support it. And in doing so make it so you can D->Go and Go->D.
Because why not, must be doable! (okay okay maybe only Linux right now)

Am 29.03.2014 20:24, schrieb Bruno Medeiros:
> On 22/03/2014 14:36, Russel Winder wrote:
>> There has been a long running thread on the Go list about needing a
>> ...
>
> (Note: I'm basing this on what has been said here regarding Go... I
> haven't checked the Go discussions myself, so that's why I wonder what
> their motivation is)
>

They are quite interesting to follow, given some of the more opinionated long time community members.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone would care, if the language wasn't sponsored by Google.

--
Paulo

On 3/30/2014 10:01 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>
> Sometimes I wonder if anyone would care, if the language wasn't
> sponsored by Google.
>

Isn't that pretty much the main reason it ever got any attention in the first place? Not to be snide, just that that's been my observation.