From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1465:: with SMTP id j5mr3118377qkl.63.1627664349204;
        Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:da07:: with SMTP id n7mr4372758ybf.462.1627664349044;
 Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <d2396197-9f7d-4be9-bab4-8275d4d11c87n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=146.5.2.231; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 146.5.2.231
References: <sdr7qu$cuj$1@dont-email.me> <sdstub$qk9$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <sdtmk1$jl4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sdtpjp$250$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <sdu3n0$buh$1@dont-email.me> <sdu554$1f79$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <se0nra$h84$1@dont-email.me> <d2396197-9f7d-4be9-bab4-8275d4d11c87n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f24d7137-3e8d-4f38-9ab4-055848a4e42dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Building the 2021 source release of GnatStudio
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:59:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62454
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 5:51:51 AM UTC-6, briot wrote:
> 
> Shark8 suggested that external dependencies are a bad thing altogether, and libraries like GtkAda and GNATCOLL 
> should never be used.
This is a rather uncharitable take of my suggestion that all dependencies should be, from time to time, evaluated against their benefits and costs.
But I do stand by it: if some dependency costs more to maintain (not excluding things like install/configuration or make/build troubles foisted on the users and maintainers) then it should be eliminated.
I have a rather harsh view of Python itself, especially the tendency to "it works on my computer!" WRT installation woes, that I strongly question if it *IS* "worth its keep".
> This is totally opposite to what people actually want (see the development of Alire for instance, or what happens in all programming languages out there). So that also makes no sense. 
I'm sorry, but *HOW* does a package-manager's popularity (much less existence) negate my suggestion that a dependency's usefulness [and pain-points] should be evaluated?
Just because some package's dependency is well-used doesn't make it a good thing to depend upon, does it? I mean, consider the story of NPM and leftpad: https://www.theregister.com/2016/03/23/npm_left_pad_chaos/