Github's Hub tool is a good example.
It was originally written in Ruby. This requires that the user:
- may need to handle a certain environment in terms of Ruby interpreter (potentially install a new version)
- may need to handle a certain libraries group (gemsets in RVM)
- needs to install dependencies
- needs to handle switching to the appropriate Ruby interpreter version and libraries group
Especially point 3 is a pain.
Even just installing everything as system Ruby won't work, because often, different Ruby interpreter versions are required.
Once they moved to Golang:
- the distributor compiles for different platforms
- the user downloads the given version for their O/S
That's all.
Where does the generalization to dynamic vs. static languages come from?
> Github's Hub tool is a good example.
I gave an example already—a counterexample, that is. Was there something wrong with it?
>> the distributor compiles for different platforms
Most people aren't doing that for you. There are lots of tools out there where you do need to still manually compile it yourself and make sure you have the appropriate dependencies which will still be painful. That being said, I agree that shipping a script can be a problem, but lots of people use Brew and that seems to work ok.
Weird statement. Software distribution generally is pretty terrible, regardless of what sort of language it's written in. The one exception is JS, which happens to be dynamic and also has what is probably the most reliable and ubiquitous platform available—so much so that its distribution story is often credited, rightly or wrongly, as the only reason anyone actually uses it.