[HN Gopher] How user groups made software reuse a reality
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How user groups made software reuse a reality
        
       Author : todsacerdoti
       Score  : 114 points
       Date   : 2024-03-02 19:51 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (ztoz.blog)
 (TXT) w3m dump (ztoz.blog)
        
       | ilaksh wrote:
       | Interesting history, but I think a more interesting article for
       | me would be about what actually caused modern software
       | repositories/registries to be introduced and take off. Because
       | that is the point where software reuse went into hyperdrive.
       | 
       | Software registries and dependencies are often sneered at by some
       | engineers as a source of bloat and poor quality code. But I think
       | that having an overall negative attitude towards any software
       | registry is a sign of a lack of perspective. Those registries
       | have been the biggest improvement in software engineering ever.
       | 
       | And people that suggest otherwise don't know what software
       | engineering is or it's history.
        
         | jwstarr wrote:
         | Author here. Thank you for the feedback. I may tackle a history
         | of the registries from netlib and CTAN forward in the near
         | future.
         | 
         | For this article, I deliberately kept the scope limited because
         | it was getting rather long.
        
           | dhosek wrote:
           | I was around for the initial discussions on CTAN having run a
           | popular FTP archive for TeX-related software in the late
           | 80s/early 90s. Given the heterogeneity of computing platforms
           | in those days (EBCDIC vs ASCII, bigendian vs littleendian, CR
           | vs LF vs CRLF to separate lines, blocks vs streams for file
           | structures), even a relatively straightforward text-based
           | archive had its potential footguns. Add in the lack of
           | anything resembling a reliable cross-platform scripting
           | language (Perl was the first contender in this space, and
           | didn't have the insane cross-platform reach TeX did at the
           | time) and there were some rather heroic efforts to use TeX
           | itself as the scripting platform. The best-known and most
           | widely used of these would be docstrip which was used as a
           | sort of WEAVE/TANGLE for TeX code, but I remember there being
           | an effort to also do some translation of files and out of
           | BASE64-encoded format for reliable cross-platform transport.
           | The original CTAN FTP server in the UK also had the cool
           | feature that if you wanted the contents of a directory,
           | adding .zip to the end of that directory name would return
           | the directory's contents zipped.
           | 
           | Being a first mover has had its drawbacks of course. Most
           | notably, the lack of any sort of versioning of dependencies
           | and that everything is functionally in a single flat
           | directory (even if on disk it's arranged in a hierarchical
           | tree, that tree is flattened for all inputs). People who
           | complain about the functionality of newer dependency managers
           | have no idea how much better even the worst are compared to
           | what it was like in the past.
        
         | BobbyTables2 wrote:
         | Indeed. In the old days, we had to write our own malware!
         | 
         | Kids these days have it easy...
        
         | whstl wrote:
         | I really wonder who you are talking about.
         | 
         | I never saw anyone ever, even in the deepest pits of the
         | internet, complaining about software registries per se. Even
         | ultra-crackpots rarely get to this level. The regular
         | complaints are _always_ about very specific points around the
         | culture of individual package registries. Even the most ardent
         | NPM critic will be the first to admit that the general idea is
         | _per se_ great, and it is in practice it is useful, but the
         | execution is lacking in some aspects, often exclusively
         | cultural. Nobody is trying to throw away the baby with the
         | bathwater.
         | 
         | Package registries are definitely useful and important. They
         | don't need someone misrepresenting valid criticism in order to
         | be useful.
         | 
         | If anything it is the lack of empathy and the blindness to
         | those tradeoffs that shows a lack of understanding of
         | engineering itself, not only its history.
        
           | darkerside wrote:
           | Beware this mindset. While it is completely reasonable, know
           | that probably hundreds of new software developers enter the
           | workforce every day, they hear us bitching about package
           | registries like npm, and lack the experience to distinguish
           | baby from said bathwater.
        
             | whstl wrote:
             | A strawman? Sorry, but not sorry. I will keep defending
             | mine and other people's ability to criticise things that
             | have plenty of room for improvement.
        
       | hun3 wrote:
       | https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome might be a reasonable
       | starting point for anyone looking for software curations.
        
       | treve wrote:
       | I was hoping this would go into SHARE and was not disappointed.
       | I'm happy to see people interested in this era of our industry.
        
         | bigkahuna2421 wrote:
         | Fantastic timing as well. SHARE is this week in Orlando.
         | 
         | https://www.share.org/Events/SHARE-Orlando-2024
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-03 23:02 UTC)