News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by VeejayRampay on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @05:59AM (#12546753)
Homebrew is a huge help that perfectly fills the niche it's intended for. Thanks for all people involved, you're time savers, which is pretty much the most sought after quality of a software project.
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by pikachu_is_cool on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @06:02AM (#12546769)
Except for loading the Ruby VM. Takes way too long.
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by mikemcquaid on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @06:08AM (#12546797)
Which is why for certain things like `brew --prefix` we now do it purely in Bash rather than using Ruby ;)
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by barpet on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @06:40AM (#12546925)
Why would bash be faster ? Would not you essentially call the same C lib stuff anyway ?
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by s_kilk on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @06:43AM (#12546942)
It would at least save the process-start overhead, plus loading the ruby vm and modules/gems.
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by mikemcquaid on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:08AM (#12547784)
Exactly. For a simple string comparison Bash is far faster (although Homebrew doesn't use require any gems, just FYI).
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by s_kilk on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:49AM (#12548109)
Good to know, so did the speedup come mostly from not spinning-up the Ruby VM?
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by mikemcquaid on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @10:25AM (#12548403)
Yep!
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by pikachu_is_cool on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @02:30PM (#12550918)
I guess it's a start. But even still, the most basic of commands take a good 1+ seconds on my machine. What about Ruby makes it necessary to use? What is stopping you guys from moving to something like LuaJIT?
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by mikemcquaid on Thursday September 22, 2016 @04:15AM (#12555334)
Rewriting the entire project in non-Ruby would require a lot of time and create a lot of bugs for little benefit for most users.
Re:Homebrew 1.0.0 by pikachu_is_cool on Friday September 23, 2016 @03:15PM (#12567201)
Unfortunate.