> At this point, it seems to me like you have already decided I am wrong, no matter what I say, and have no desire to accept what I say that is meant to help you. So I'll just leave the conversation where it is.
It seems a bit defeatist to say this. Nobody on the internet, or the world for that matter, (unless they're agreeable and are just pretending to agree with you) is going to agree with you after the exchange of a few messages.
I should point out that I never disagreed with your fundamental claim that it would be easier to make a hermetic build system IF it's all encompassing and complicated. It's for example why systemd is easier to write if it's all tightly coupled versus if it was trying to have minimal coupling with minimal simple APIs and minimal simple tools building it up.
It's easier to write complex and tightly coupled software, it's why everyone does it instead of following the unix philosophy. I was simply pointing out that the unix philosophy was successful (for a while) for a reason, not because it was easy to follow it, but because the difficulty of making things simple paid off in the long run.
Please read what I wrote, I never made any hard claims about you being wrong, I've been mostly asking questions to get you to elaborate your stance. The sheer fact that I'm willing to entertain such long-form conversation should be enough proof of the fact that I haven't completely mentally dismissed your arguments as outright wrong.
> I will say, though, that if you're not hearing about my build system in a few years, you can safely assume that you were right and that I was wrong.
I don't think popularity (which is what you appear to be aiming for) is a good metric of the quality of software. Especially in the modern day and age where one of the most popular methods of shipping cross platform software is to ship it with its own instance of chromium and to write it as a local webapp. I think this is at least because modern day humans have become a lot more impatient and a lot more focused on short term convenience over long term benefits. But this discussion is outside of the scope.
It seems a bit defeatist to say this. Nobody on the internet, or the world for that matter, (unless they're agreeable and are just pretending to agree with you) is going to agree with you after the exchange of a few messages.
I should point out that I never disagreed with your fundamental claim that it would be easier to make a hermetic build system IF it's all encompassing and complicated. It's for example why systemd is easier to write if it's all tightly coupled versus if it was trying to have minimal coupling with minimal simple APIs and minimal simple tools building it up.
It's easier to write complex and tightly coupled software, it's why everyone does it instead of following the unix philosophy. I was simply pointing out that the unix philosophy was successful (for a while) for a reason, not because it was easy to follow it, but because the difficulty of making things simple paid off in the long run.
Please read what I wrote, I never made any hard claims about you being wrong, I've been mostly asking questions to get you to elaborate your stance. The sheer fact that I'm willing to entertain such long-form conversation should be enough proof of the fact that I haven't completely mentally dismissed your arguments as outright wrong.
> I will say, though, that if you're not hearing about my build system in a few years, you can safely assume that you were right and that I was wrong.
I don't think popularity (which is what you appear to be aiming for) is a good metric of the quality of software. Especially in the modern day and age where one of the most popular methods of shipping cross platform software is to ship it with its own instance of chromium and to write it as a local webapp. I think this is at least because modern day humans have become a lot more impatient and a lot more focused on short term convenience over long term benefits. But this discussion is outside of the scope.