[nirvdrum]

That's a fairly weak argument. If it's not going to change, then maybe some outreach should be done to get him to tag it 1.0. Otherwise you're opening yourself up to the exact same issue you outline as an issue for Bundler -- people assumping a pre-1.0 project is stable. As long as there's the option for someone to say "this is pre 1.0 so I can change it whenever" it's going to cause concern because most of us have been burned by that several times over. A de facto 1.0 release vs an actual 1.0 release.

As for the FUDdiness, there was another extensive comment thread here on HN when Cargo was announced. I didn't feel it necessary to re-enumerate all those concerns. And to the best of my recollection, the problems listed were all technical in nature, not personal. For my part, my list was:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7421629

But, I'm hardly alone in being concerned. This is something that will drastically influence the ecosystem. So, it should be met with some level of scrutiny. If it comes out passing muster, great. But that's not going to happen by being glib about things.

[steveklabnik]

> If it's not going to change, then maybe some outreach should be done to get him to tag it 1.0.

Absolutely. Let me make an issue about that: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/46 If he doesn't respond, I will email him.

> As for the FUDdiness...

Thanks! Since the points are enumerated, I can refute them:

> * You can't override a dependency:

You can, in modern Bundlers. But the transitive dependency issue is inherent to Ruby, not Bundler. Cargo will work like npm in this regard, not like bundler.

> Dependencies can disappear on you:

The central repository isn't built yet, but this is very valid. The reason that `gem yank` is still available to everyone is that you'd be surprised how often people push proprietary stuff up to RubyGems. It was removed for a while and caused a significant burden on the RubyGems team.

Regardless, yes, this is a serious consideration.

> It has weird rules:

Totally fair. Let's learn from that and make Cargo not have weird rules. :)

> * It promotes bad practices:

Yup, that's a Rails thing. Rust should be way better, as it doesn't have this kind of issue.

> * It's slow:

This actually has just as much to do with RubyGems as it does Bundler. See all of the presentations Andre has been doing recently, and the bundler-api project.

> * It was designed for MRI:

Quite fair. We only have one Rust implementation so far, but `cargo exec` won't be necessary.

------------------------

> So, it should be met with some level of scrutiny.

Absolutely! I don't mean to say "just take this without complaints." But without specific, actionable complaints, it won't get fixed. Please make as many specific, actionable complaints as possible, especially now, pre 1.0.

[nirvdrum]

I think we wound up on the same page, even if a circuitous route. So I don't want to continue beating up on bundler. But I guess I'm going to take one more parting shot and mention that a lot of its execution performance is due to thor as well (at least when I've profiled). Using binstubs rather than "bundle exec" can be a good deal faster.

I feel compelled to mention it because this seems to be a clear case where an aesthetic DSL was chosen over performance and it can't really be fixed without a backwards-incompatible change. Rust and Ruby are two different beasts and I get that. I just hope that performance is a core design consideration for Cargo (I have no idea if it is or if it's just a nice-to-have).

Airing dirty laundry is hardly ever pleasant. I'm certainly not immune to my own set of WTFs. I legitimately just want to make sure Cargo comes out awesome. And I much appreciate Mozilla's commitment to having a standard dependency resolution tool when Rust ships.

[steveklabnik]

Sounds good. I'll make one tiny parting shot to your parting shot, and we'll be done. :)

> Using binstubs rather than "bundle exec" can be a good deal faster.

Absolutely, which is why we switched to them with Rails. It is a tough problem, though, and given Ruby's constraints. In my testing, it's the startup time that's the issue, not Thor, which is because `bundle exec` has to re-start the interpreter multiple times, and binstubs don't. Anyway.

> I just hope that performance is a core design consideration for Cargo

Rust people already feel the pain of very long rustc compiles, so while I'm not sure that it's an overriding concern, given the Rust world's concern with performance in general, I expect it to be way better. Ruby has always kinda thrown performance to the wolves.

> I legitimately just want to make sure Cargo comes out awesome.

We all do. And I'll admit to being a bit sensitive to 'lol bundler,' which I feel is often said without fully understanding the problem space, which is admittedly large. Not that you are doing that, but I have seen similar comments elsewhere. Once you explain the details, it's pretty clear why Bundler does what it does.

Anyway, yes: let's make Cargo 1.0 and Rust 1.0 super awesome! I'm really excited that we're taking this step forward. It's a huge day for Rust.

[mercurial]

I would like to take the opportunity to say that your fast, no-bullshit answers (and actions) are appreciated (in general the Rust community seems to foster this sort of positive attitude, carry on).

[steveklabnik]

Thanks. I have a bit of an... obsessive streak when it comes to these kinds of threads. It works out, though it also means I didn't get a whole lot of other stuff done yet today...

I hope we can keep the Rust community mega positive and no-bullshit. Please let me know if I'm ever not being so.