[ruby-core:56710] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8781] Use require_relative() instead of require() if possible

FYI: For those of you who wants to estimate how a "real use case" looks
like, here I made tons of `require_relative`s on Rails
https://github.com/amatsuda/rails/compare/require_relative
Here I replaced all `require`s to `require_relative`.
I confirmed it actually works, and as Ko1 said, we confirmed that it's not
at all faster than the current `require` version, because Bundler already
made require faster in a different way.

> Yes.  I think it's fine, I just don't want to use it.  Are there no more
> ways to speed up `require`?

1. Use Bundler

2. Avoid scanning through all installed gems before falling back to the
original_require:
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/c106d19/lib/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb#L41
This is the reason every require call performs significantly slower than
require_relative.

3. Reduce number of installed gems in your box...

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Aaron Patterson
<[e-mail]>wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 09:00:34PM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
> > (13/08/17 13:13), Aaron Patterson wrote:
> > > First, it *is* a real use case (as in, people actually use it in *real*
> > > projects):
> > >
> > > [aaron@higgins ruby (trunk)]$ git grep require_relative | grep '\.\.'
> | wc -l
> > >       45
> > > [aaron@higgins ruby (trunk)]$
> >
> > It's only in test directory, and almost is test/ruby/envutil.rb.
> >
> > I agree that require_relative fits something but may not other.
> > That example tells us that envutil.rb shouldn't be bound in test/ruby.
> >
> > > Again, "foo.rb" is completely independent of the filesystem.  The files
> > > it depends on did not change, so it did not have to change.
> > >
> > > I am uncertain how to make the coupling between "require_relative" and
> > > the filesystem more clear than this.
> >
> > But I don't think your point enough to prohibit to use require_relative.
>
> I don't think it should be prohibited.  I am pointing out why I don't
> use it (namely LOAD_PATH hacking).
>
> > Why move a file but not edit it?
>
> I am using "file moving" as a way to demonstrate how `require_relative`
> couples your file to its location on the file system.  `require` does
> not have this coupling.
>
> > An author can use it when one thinks it is useful, it's the author's
> choice.
> > This proposal is just a proposal, but not mandatory.
>
> Yes.  I think it's fine, I just don't want to use it.  Are there no more
> ways to speed up `require`?
>
> --
> Aaron Patterson
> http://tenderlovemaking.com/
>



-- 
Akira Matsuda<[e-mail]>