Comments on: From IoC to require

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:21:00 +0000

Will do. That appears to be client side. But looks cool. In the post I am discussing the require function call in node vs the require.js client side tool. But AngularJS looks like my cup of tea. Thanks!

By: EdCh

EdCh — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:12:00 +0000

FYI, check out AngularJS. It supports dependency injection.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:07:00 +0000

How did we get to checking in files? re:RVM its still two tool that I have to learn and understand. never used ‘npm shrinkwrap’ so I can’t comment. Dang it HAF. I just like NPM, we are going to get married and there isn’t anything you can do about it!

By: haf

haf — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:03:00 +0000

That’s a pretty hardline attitude. I can see pros and cons of both; e.g. there’s an adage saying ‘never to check in generated files’, which is similar to how vendoring the packages are; if you can just find good versions, you don’t have to blow up your repo size and pollute your history.

Ruby done the RVM way doesn’t require you to install into a global set of gems; all installations go into gemsets and you can switch between them, so then it’s somewhere in the middle of vendoring and using bundler.

Furthermore, NPM has a command: ‘npm shrinkwrap’ == ‘bundle install’, that generates a transitive closure of your dependencies as a specification file, rather than vendoring them. Is this also FAIL then?

Then there’s the case of writing a lib versus writing an app: with an application you want to follow ceteris paribus, so you vendor your packages. With a lib, on the other hand, you want to follow the package version levelling principle, so you specify dependency ranges. Perhaps node-people simply write apps most of the time and therefore its handier?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:52:00 +0000

I am not YET sold on the cross compiling. I am ok with CoffeeScript to JavaScript but C# to JS feels odd. Plus, I just like the funky nature of JS.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:52:00 +0000

require.js for the server side? I use the shiz out of it for the client side.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:52:00 +0000

Yes it does. I was skeptical at first but now I am sold.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:51:00 +0000

Ok, I finally tried out the Vintage mode. and … its AWESOME.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:50:00 +0000

Correct Ruby has one package installer that is global by default. Then I have to get Bundler to make them private. FAIL. Python, pick your installer, now use the arcane virtualenv stuff to make them private. FAIL. .Net has one crap tastic installer and everything is private by default. good but NuGet is just – so from my view point there is a versus thing. NPM is private by default, works quite well too. I haven’t shopped for an RVM equiv for Node but I imagine it will be nice because, well, they get to learn from everyone else.

By: haf

haf — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:35:00 +0000

Bython has two package installers, correct. But ruby doesn’t, it only has gems. Bundler is for packaging a working set if gems together; it is in Ruby land, what virtualenv is in Python land, what Dir.glob(‘src/**/packages.config’) is in .Net land, so there’s no versus-thing going on in Ruby land. Both Python and Ruby’s gems are private by default when you’re using virtualenvwrapper/virtualenv and RVM respectively.