Reusability: Difference between revisions
revise for readability about poor grasp and execution
("modules in-place") |
(revise for readability about poor grasp and execution) |
||
Line 5:
This strategy differs from the workflows that have arisen regarding contemporary "modern" package managers (which generally operate using pointers and semantic versioning). There are several reasons for this:
* Programmers have demonstrated some combination of a poor grasp of the semantic versioning scheme and/or
* By embedding the contents of dependencies into the same source tree or providing a single-shot means of obtaining all third-party dependencies, it's much easier for maintainers to get things "right" with respect to the separation between source acquisition and the build process, particularly so that the separation remains clear for those downstream
* In traditional systems, externally hosted dependencies might disappear, but in the world of triple scripts, the strategy resembles the philosophy of LOCKSS, which can be viewed as an insurance policy against the disappearance of dependencies, but actually goes further than that, by elevating the "resilient" path into the standard workflow
| |||