[ruby-talk:12405] Re: Java on Ruby, Ruby on Java, JRuby? where?

On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 04:43:35PM +0900, rise wrote:
> 
> Apple of all companies is actually taking a crack at the problem[1]. One
> of the few really impressive parts of Mac OS X is the Framework concept
> they're using. Basically a framework can store multiple versions of the
> same libraries/headers/resources and allow applications to link to the
> correct versions (and find localized libraries, etc.). There's some
> potential for bloat, but it could potentially kill most of the library
> hell we otherwise end up in.

"Some potential for bloat"?  If you're going to be using this facility
on OS X, you'll be glad disk space is relatively cheap these days. I
used to administer a system where users could easily modify their $PATHs 
with "modules":  Say you wanted to use GNU tar rather than Solaris' tar. 
You'd give "module load gnu" command, and GNU tar (and lot's of other
GNU utilities) would end up in your $PATH before Solaris'.  Or, if you
wanted to use jdk-1.1 rather than 1.2, "module load jdk-1.1".  This 
system made it easy to keep different versions of programs, libraries,
and software packages around.  It's big problem was that it made it 
easy to keep different versions of programs, libraries, and software
packages (and that's apart from the particular havoc it wreaked on that
Java $CLASSPATH nonsense).  When it got to the point where we had seven
different versions of Perl floating around, each with different sets of 
Perl modules installed, with everbody's programs depending on different 
Perls, I shit-canned the whole thing.

> I just hope that Darwin (the open source core
> of OS X) leads to this same functionality being adopted in Linux etc[2].
> 
> There's some coverage at:
> http://arstechnica.com/reviews/2q00/macos-x-dp4/macos-x-dp4-2.html and
> http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/CoreFoundation/BundleServices/CFBundleServices/index.html
> documents "Bundle Services" (a framework is a type of bundle, as are
> applications and plug-ins).
> 
> All in all a very cool technology and one of the first plausible attempts
> I've seen at beating back the library compatibility issue.

So instead of maintaining some discipline in your libraries and file
systems, you throw up your hands and say "What the hell, I'll just keep
*everything* around!"  Try this, and believe me, you'll find the cure
is worse than the disease.

> 
> Jonathan Conway
> 
> 

David S.