|~/Code/ember.js ‹ruby-1.9.3› ‹master*› $ bundle && echo "fuck you giles"|
|Using rake (0.9.2.2)|
|Using confparser (0.0.2.1)|
|Using multi_json (1.0.4)|
|Using execjs (1.2.13)|
|Using libxml-ruby (2.2.2)|
|Using faster_xml_simple (0.5.0)|
|Using httpclient (2.2.4)|
|Using json (1.6.5)|
|Using nokogiri (1.5.0)|
|Using net-github-upload (0.0.8)|
|Using github-upload (0.0.2)|
|Using rack (1.4.1)|
|Using thor (0.14.6)|
|Using rake-pipeline (0.6.0) from https://github.com/livingsocial/rake-pipeline.git (at master)|
|Using rake-pipeline-web-filters (0.6.0) from https://github.com/wycats/rake-pipeline-web-filters.git (at master)|
|Using sproutcore (0.0.1) from https://github.com/wycats/abbot-from-scratch.git (at master)|
|Using uglifier (1.0.4)|
|Using bundler (1.1.rc.7)|
|Your bundle is complete! Use `bundle show [gemname]` to see where a bundled gem is installed.|
|fuck you giles|
I think my argument about
But my apologies on this exit status thing, because that was 100% my mistake. I've corrected it in the post.
@gilesbowkett I didn't bother to respond to anything other than this because your post was sloppy and full of hyperbole. I'm not as charitable as @raganwald. Your sloppiness makes his analogy to Harlan Ellison laughable.
protip: if you're going to criticize something with the level of vitriol that you're throwing around here, at least get your facts straight. It might also be good to understand the rationale for the decisions you're complaining about.
@wycats Oh come on. Who's going to believe that? Yehuda Katz passing up the opportunity to correct somebody who's wrong? That's like Paula Deen turning down a bacon cheeseburger.
Here's a "wontfix" with regard to
What this says to me is "we're not making convention over configuration a priority." That's the only criticism I've made on this particular web page right here, in the comments on this particular gist -- that Bundler doesn't make convention over configuration a priority. Is that really such hyperbole?
And where was the vitriol? I said Bundler was awesome, but not finished.
@tarcieri Thank you for providing me with further configuration options with which to resolve my concern that
Much ado over a 1 line .rvmrc file. Should Rails generate that for you and shove RVM down your throat as "convention"? Would that really be a positive step forward? What if people don't want to run RVM on their servers? What if people want to use rbenv?
And for what, to have the one true way to get rid of "bundle exec" be gemsets? The other options are also valid. Pick the one you like the best.
On the whole Bundler thing, I'd almost like to see something similar to what npm does. For example, Bundler could default to something like
That would mean
You do realize by blowing this whole thing out of proportion, your whole post was something of a "fuck you" to the entire Ruby community, right?
We're talking about a problem that's literally solved by a one line .rvmrc (amidst myriad other solutions), and you managed to turn it into an argument that Ruby has lost its way.
First, I think you mean an argument that Rails has lost its way. Second, a one-line
We're not talking about a problem that's literally or even figuratively solved by one-line
And as for a giant "fuck you," you're dreaming. I'm not Zed Shaw. I didn't say I was going to put on my combat boots and kick Michael Koziarski's ass. I said Rails 3 was not a step forward the way Rails 2 was, and that developing in Node.js is more fun right now. Saying somebody made a mistake does not equate to a giant "fuck you." Get over it.
@gilesbowkett I know this thread is inactive by two months, but I have some considerations to do.
I'm not a huge programmer. I had two years of experience with Rails 2.3.X (and did a lot of things out of the Rails way). But right now I'm starting a new project with Rails 3.2, and I loved it.
I don't know if I understand the whole
I see the problems you are talking about. But I think they are really minor. The main progress on Rails 3, for me, was UJS. I think you remember how ugly and clumsy RJS was, and how difficult it was to think about a software using it. And most people didn't even got it! There were books teaching
Also, it is a lot easier to use bundler then it was to use... I don't know, how did you include libraries? I had a hard time with ruby-rdf, at that time, and I doubt I'd have on Rails 3.2.
So, I think everybody that says "Rails 3.X was not an improvement!" is missing completely the point. The basic configuration that comes with
I'll look into rbenv-bundler as a solution.
I said several times that Bundler is incredibly useful, and I definitely never said Rails 3 was not an improvement at all. I agree that many of the issues I raised are not of earth-shattering importance. In fact I don't believe I ever asserted otherwise. People got furious beyond words about a blog post in which I devoted at least one paragraph, maybe more, to discussing my own balls. I never thought I would have to say this, but I really think that nobody ever needs to take my balls more seriously than I do.
I actually enjoyed RJS but I avoided it for serious work of course. UJS is def better.
Your point about Rails generating the Gemfile, though, I can't agree with that. First, your solution only works when using Bundler with Rails. Second, to even be having an argument about whether or not
And let's face it, 90% is generous. It's probably the 99% use case or more.
I even asked one of the Bundler guys on Hacker News if I could re-open an issue about making it the default, and never got a response.
For what it's worth, if you interpret DRY as some holy quest to never type the same thing twice, you're going to have a bad time.
DRY is about not having the same behavior in multiple places. It's about segregating concerns of a system into separate parts, not saving keystrokes. Those are just helpful, and a byproduct of actually being DRY. Pushing that is like pushing code to test ratios, they're nifty and sometimes good, but they're a byproduct of good testing. Anything more is merely mental masturbation.