by super_linear on 9/4/23, 9:58 PM with 35 comments
by lapinot on 9/5/23, 10:12 AM
See ddevault's two very clear explanations of this issue: https://drewdevault.com/2019/12/09/Developers-shouldnt-distr... and https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job....
by alphazard on 9/5/23, 1:14 PM
They easily could have. pkg.go.dev could be like npm. It's not a question of cost, google is paying for the infrastructure.
It seems that language creators generally get this false impression that if they are the one to create the new namespace, then it will be high quality, and the best packages will get the short de-facto names. Maybe a few of the packages they wrote themselves can get some of the first names.
That's never what happens. The wise solution is just to use DNS. We already have names, people pay for them, there is infrastructure for selling them, there is an auditable certificate system. A new package namespace won't have any of that.
by sixhobbits on 9/5/23, 11:11 AM
In this case, the `bs4` package actually directly installs what you need, though I agree with the arguments in the article why this might not be ideal.
It would be nice if the committees that deal with the language itself could also look after things like this as it's hard to say objectively (main package needs x installs/month?) when something is squatting and when it is useful, but I think a 'common sense' approach goes pretty far.
by Xymist on 9/5/23, 10:49 AM
by oars on 9/5/23, 7:22 AM
This was created a year ago and Crates.io haven't taken it down so I assume they're ok with it.
by miki123211 on 9/6/23, 2:40 PM
by jbaber on 9/5/23, 11:18 AM
by acheong08 on 9/5/23, 12:12 PM