On the one hand, it's nice to see Ruby and the Ruby tooling system getting some love.
On the other, I'm not sure if this is really needed. Most of this stuff already works fine in Ruby with Bundler. Did you know that Bundler already has a really nice syntax for inline requirements for single-file scripts?[0] Seems like a lot of people forgot. Installing Ruby hasn't generally been much of a hassle either AFAIK. Bundler also doesn't seem to have the Python venv problem - it works fine for keeping a bunch of gem versions around in the same Ruby install and only activating the specified ones. I think Gemfile and Gemfile.lock is what Python always wished they had. I guess more speed never hurt, but it never felt like bundler was painfully slow for me, even on huge codebases. So is there really a big win here?
Though I guess plenty of Python gurus probably feel the same way about the uv craze when their existing tooling works well enough for them.
I mean conceptually, venv and all that stuff, I can't wrap my head around this, why anyone would do it that way. Have a project.deb file with everything in it, done. Like everyone else does it. With Python I need to switch to that environment when I go to the directory and all of that.
This:
"Then, run the script in an isolated virtual environment"
As someone who uses Nix and direnv to manage development environments, the additional speed will be nice for me. I don't need rv to supply a Ruby for me at all, but just a really fast Bundler would be nice.
My environment reasserts that the correct things are installed every time I change into the directory. A no-op Bundle install takes a couple hundred milliseconds, which is not great for something you want to run constantly and automatically. Getting that down to tens of milliseconds will be really nice for me!
I agree mostly, though I guess it is easier for newbies if they only have to learn one tool instead of three more focused ones (bundler/chruby/ruby-install in my case, but the latter two have mostly equivalent variants).
It's fun to see package management improvements move full circle—lessons from Ruby package management contributed to Rust, Rust is helping improve package management for Python, and now Python package management is inspiring improvements for Ruby!
It looks cool but I feel this kind of tool is only useful if Ruby is the only language you use. I have to manage several runtimes for most projects. I've used asdf for years and recently switched to mise: these tools already download pre compiled binaries for Ruby, plus pretty much any other language runtime.
It's likely that you get better per language features for something specific to the language though. We end up in exactly the same kind of frustration, that for some random project you need this specific tool that does dependency management of the specific runtime. asdf and mise both respect a .tool-versions file, I'd rather see things go more in that direction with some kind of standard.
A flake.nix file plus a direnv `.envrc` file with `use flake` has solved this for me.
When I cd into a project directory I get all of the tools that project needs, at the exact versions they were tested with. When I cd out of the directory, they go away. If the dependencies are well behaved (e.g. they don't do any self-modification, which is annoyingly common in the npm world) then it's often pretty easy to track all of your deps this way, imported from your npm package-lock.json or similar.
Ask your favorite LLM to write your flake.nix file for you, they're pretty good at it. I've been able to drop all of the bespoke language-specific tool versioning stuff `nvm`, `uv`, `rvm`, etc for all my personal projects, and it makes it easy to add deps from outside the language-specific package managers, like ffmpeg and lame.
If you still want to package your stuff natively for the language ecosystem, you still need all the usual metadata and you also want to specify version constraints for your dependencies and so on.
Typically I wire up something like uv or rv (or Poetry or Bundler, which are fine but slower) to shell activation using Devenv, then autogenerate the Nix package from the language-native dependency specification files.
mise is really nice in this respect in that it manages the tools and the environment, so you don't need direnv as well. It also has hooks for running arbitrary commands when you cd in (although you can do that with direnv because it basically just runs .envrc as a script).
nix manages the environment too, all direnv is doing in my setup is automatically entering and leaving environments based on my current working directory. Looks like mise does that automatically, which is neat.
mise looks nice, uses PATH manipulation rather than asdf's slow wrappers, and it supports Windows, which is a point over nix. nix only supports unixy environments like Linux, Mac, and WSL.
What might tempt a mise user to try nix are its just truly stupendous collection of packages, so more tools are available. You can also easily add your own packages, either upstream or privately. nix is bigger, more ambitious, more principled, but more complicated. You can build an entire fully-reproducible operating system from a short nix config. It's really cool! But also a lot more to learn, more surface area, more places to get confused or to spend time fiddling with configs rather than solving the actual problem.
mise uses `uv` as a backend for some python things (like python tools via `uvx`). If `rv` develops in the same direction as `uv` then it could be the default backend for `mise` ruby things.
I've been very happy with `mise` since switching from asdf, and also very happy with uv in general. I think they play nice together.
I agree with the sentiment as I also use asdf but feel at this stage this critique of the project feels more than a little unfair.
We really don’t have the features they’ve been discussing including the npx like feature and easily just run Ruby without installer headaches that it seems they’ve gone after solving.
Reframing, id like to ask that .tool-versions be supported as a place where we can define Ruby versions. Then both tools with a little tweaking could pretty much be used side by side.
I don't think I really criticized the project. I said it was cool, I had a look at it. I just put down that I think there are pros and cons to the single language approach and, for me, the cons outweigh the pros.
Wait, how do you get precompiled Rubies with mise? I still have to compile with default settings, and the docs only mention that it uses ruby-build behind the scenes: https://mise.jdx.dev/lang/ruby.html
I don't think you can. I also don't know why people care so much about it - I work full time with ruby and compiling a new version, which maybe takes 10 minutes, a couple times a year is no big deal.
I think it comes mostly from CI environments that start entirely clean before every run. 10 minutes every time a commit is pushed is not pleasant. That's not how I'd like CI to work, but sadly it seems to be the current state of things.
I'm sure rv is great, but am I the only one who needs one such tool not only for Ruby, but also Python, JavaScript, and Java, at least, and finds it weird to run 4+ of those?
I think it's probably for the best to have a different tool for each language/platform. Not every language or platform matches feature for feature in that the options will already be different for each language, and you're likely to have such a "universal" tool come up short in support of one language or another.
I really appreciate cargo a lot for what it brings, even if it's calling different tools under the covers. Similarly, I appreciate deno in that it brings all the tooling and the runtime in a single executable (box). I've migrated most of my scripting to TypeScript using deno at this point because of that distributive ease. Even if the shebang itself is a bit sloppy.
Aside, would be cool to have a VS Code extension that would to file type detection based on a shebang at the top of the file. Making it easier to do extensionless script files with language support.
We've been using mise since it was called rtx at $DAYJOB, and it's caused many a headache (mostly around upgrades/backcompat/etc.). We use it both on dev machines and in CI. In spite of that, it’s decent at what it does, and I wouldn’t soon replace it with individual version managers, given that we have similar needs.
However…more than once we've seen language runtimes that used to be available exclusively via plug-ins be migrated to be internal to mise, which broke everyone's setups in strange and hilarious ways, and caused countless hours of debugging.
Less bad overall than using individual runtime version managers for sure. But the next time mise costs us a bunch of hours fixing multiple engineers' setups, I intend to find another solution, even if that means writing my own. It’s burned us nearly one too many times.
Do you have any examples what tends to break? We used pyenv/rbenv/sdkman etc. individually, then moved to asdf and now arrived at mise. Not using yet for CI just developer stuff and so far didn't have issues. But this is quite recent for us, so didn't have to deal with upgrade issues yet.
We manage mise itself via homebrew. Sometimes when upgrading mise itself, it doesn’t seem to handle being upgraded gracefully, and loses track of installed runtimes even if we manually kick it in our upgrade scripts. Restarting the shell entirely seems to be the only way to fix it.
That, and with Ruby, Node, and at least one other language/tool IIRC, when support for those things moved internal, we had to make a bunch of changes to our scripts to handle that change with effectively no warning. That involved checking to see if the third-party plug-in was installed, uninstalling it if so, and then installing the language based on the built-in support. In the meantime, the error messages encountered were not super helpful in understanding what was going on.
I’m hopeful that these types of issues are behind us now that most of the things we care about are internal, but still, it’s been pretty annoying.
In theory it would be nice to have one tool for all languages but I think it's never going to be practical because programming languages can be different in arbitrary ways. I can't imagine how the same tool could ever be ergonomic for managing projects written in C++, Scheme, Haskell and Bash for example. Mise (and other tools for managing development environments like Flox and asdf – I prefer Flox myself) only implement a subset of the features of languages specific tools like cargo/uv/rv. For example cargo can do all of this out of the box (and you can also extend it with more subcommands):
* manage dependencies
* format and lint code
* publish package on crates.io
* open the project documentation
* install binaries
* build/run the project
* run tests
* run benchmarks
Uv/rv don't (yet?) do all of that but they also manage Ruby/Python versions (which is done separately by rustup in Rust).
What is the real problem being solved here? For all the issues that bundler still has, rv doesn't seem to address most of them. Bundler has been fast enough for a while now, how fast does this need to be? And do we now have to know rust to contribute?
If indirect is salty that the rubygems/bundler didn't turn out yet to be what he wanted, I wonder whether a simpler and faster alternative to bundler written in RUBY wouldn't be the answer, with incremental merges into bundler. Gel was mostly there, even if most never knew about it, but at least it got the bundler ppl to merge the pub grub resolver.
One thing I love about Ruby is it never devolved into ?VM hell like Python did. Yes, there are a bunch of ruby version managers, but there's only one bundler no matter how you get get ruby installed. I like some ideas here, but I'm also afraid this could be step one toward that python nightmare.
It seems pretty different in that rv waited to take inspiration from a relatively clear winner in an entirely different ecosystem, after quite some time. I think it makes sense to be optimistic.
not being dismissive of the effort or other tools and languages, not trying to convince anyone
After decades of Java (ant/maven), then Scala (sbt), then JS (npm), then TS, switching to Go (Make) some years ago made many problems go away.
The tooling (test, ...) inside the main tool (Rust still a little better I think), now tools/versions inside go.mod, the result of my work being a binary I can run with systemd, embedding files into the binary, all of that removed a lot of dep management issues, building issues, bundling issues, and the need for e.g. Docker for many use cases (which I feel many people only use to package .jar files or gems into something that can run in production).
Seems rv wants the same, "Our end goal is a completely new kind of management tool, [...] Not a version manager, or a dependency manager, but both of those things and more. I’m currently calling this category a “language manager”"
> We expect to be able to silently run equivalents of both rvm install and bundle install at the beginning of every bundle exec,
Do I understand right it doesn't use bundler code for resolving gem requirements dependency tree, but uses it's own code meant to be compatible? Hmmm.
And also producing the `Gemfile.lock`, which has had kind of a lot of churn in bundler, which bundler has had to work to keep from breaking for people even when it's assumed they're all using (different versions of) bundler.
I remember bitching to André at a conference that the Gemfile.lock format was a right hassle to deal with for literally any other tool, before I realised he was bundler maintainer at the time...
Static analysis through type hints brings plenty of benefits to a dynamic language, such as helping to eliminate bugs at runtime (albeit not perfectly) and making it easier to grok a codebase. It’s a trade off and Ruby is as dynamic as it gets. But there is a point to it
My beautiful experience with sorbet: Yeah, ducktyping? We don't do that here.
Depending on a library that uses ducktyping (like any sane library following the Ruby conventions)? Good luck writing a wrapper for it. Or just disable type checking.
This goes so much against the Ruby vibe that I advise you to just go and use Rust instead if you hate Ruby that much that you want to butcher it with types.
Sorbet has its flaws. I didn’t like it either. Having used TypeScript extensively, there is a way to do it right and a way to do it wrong. I’d classify TypeScript as the ideal way to introduce static types into a very dynamic language, given its extensive flexibility to handle dynamic features in a language (e.g. smart type inference, ‘is’ keyword, very flexible generics). Sorbet doesn’t have a lot of those features
Ruby has a strong history and tradition of TDD/unit testing. This is partially a crutch for its lack of static type analysis. Ultimately checking for bugs before running code is very useful
You use typed variables/typed function signatures when it's convenient, they give you some compile-time contracts, easy documentation and probably even speed. Otherwise they don't exist. I don't do Ruby, but Gradual Types/Type Inference is a no-brainer for dynamic languages, practically no drawback, only benefits. (And popular statically typed languages such as C/C++, Java, Rust support Type Inference, or are going there too.)
Cool. People who want gradual typing can use those and leave Ruby alone.
> I don't do Ruby
So why have an opinion?
Languages I use: Ruby, C++, Odin, R. I'm not about to to around telling Rust, Python or Typescript people they're doing their languages wrong, even if there's things I hate about those languages. I just don't use them.
Ruby already has this with Sorbet. Nobody is forcing you to use it, are they?
It seems you have a lot of opinion here without really discussing your problem with type hints though. What is it you dislike?
I use Ruby regularly, have used it for more than a decade, and I wish it had something like a TypeScript equivalent (Sorbet is sorta this but not enough). Every time I work with a Ruby codebase without Sorbet, it’s a lot of guessing and praying that test coverage is good enough. It’s not fun having to find out in prod there’s dumb bugs that would have been caught by static analysis. Something I experience virtually never in TypeScript, the other language I’ve also used for a decade
Even after over a decade with TypeScript, I'm still kind of mixed on it... there are a lot of times where trying to wrangle typing is more painful than it should need to be... I'll often just cast to any, then I have to add a comment to suppress the error message with the default config. I use deno a lot and tend not to mess with the default configuration there. Even with node/npm, I still don't do much with the tsconfig beyond what a minimal need is.
It's not as painful as earlier versions and is generally okay to work with... but there are definitely times you need to work around the typing as opposed to with it. For example extending/using context in hono/oak/koa so you get hinting, but want your endpoint handlers in separate modules. It gets very messy, very quickly.
> It seems you have a lot of opinion here without really discussing your problem with type hints. What is it you dislike?
It's runtime overhead (or you make a transpiler which then makes the language less dynamic), makes metaprogramming more annoying (other languages solve this with an "any" type which just defeats the purpose), and the "problem" it solves can be solved with tests which you should be writing anyway.
I do use statically typed languages BTW, I just prefer that if I'm going to go through the rigmarole of types that I'm going to get some actual benefit, namely an order of magnitude more performance.
My opinion is probably this since I don't work for a large corporation, I have my own startup, so I value my time a lot. I'm ok with trade-offs, I just think adding type hints to a dynamic language isn't a good trade off; it's almost all downside.
Edit:
> guessing and praying that test coverage is good enough.
For me, at least with TypeScript the single biggest advantage is the hinting you get from 3rd party packages/modules. This goes for building modules as well, you can use jsdoc directly, but it's even more cumbersome than TS imo.
It's kind of annoying that static type introspection has become the norm for language servers because live environments are so much better. With Ruby you have the REPL and there have been IDEs and tools that allow runtime reflection which is just so much better (think Lisp or Smalltalk). LSPs are nice for static languages but compared to live environments they're a step down...
Sorbet can actually make programs crash at runtime if a variable's type doesn't match its annotation, right? It's not as busted as some other gradual typing implementations.
I'm definitely in favour of gradual typing but runtime checking is already really easy to do if that's what you want. Just add a rightward assignment patten match to your method. e.g.
def somemethod(foo, bar)
foo => Integer
bar => MyBarClass
end
Personally I think the RBS-Inine format is the way forward. Sorbet has experimental support for it too.
Many smart engineers (including Guido) disagree with you, and have added static types to Python, Javascript, Dart, Elixir, Hack and surely some I'm forgetting.
This looks like a really nice improvement to the Ruby ecosystem. Great job and thank you to those involved.
I've definitely felt the awkwardness of gems being so compartmentalized by project that using system level dev tools that I like to have available for all my projects feel out of place within my project's Bundler-centric world.
I go between different languages a lot so having a command line interface that is consistent with the one I use in Python (uv) would definitely be appreciated. I mostly use Ruby for single-file scripts with no dependencies, which means I don't do projects often enough to remember how to use bundle/gem/rvm/whatever. It seems to me like `rv` is not quite ready to fully replace them just yet but I'm excited to see where the project goes.
I'm also excited about `rv tool` because I've been having to re-install rubocop and ruby-lsp gems every time the minor version of the system Ruby is updated. It's just a few commands every year (and I'm sure it's a skill issue) but having things "just work" with a single `rvx rubocop` command will be sweet.
"Not a version manager, or a dependency manager, but both of those things and more. I’m currently calling this category a “language manager”, but if you have a better name idea, let me know!"
If I understand correctly, rvm/rbenv only install Ruby versions, and you use bundler to install dependencies. rv seems to manage everything (like uv in Python) – Ruby versions and dependencies, and adds things on top of that (like `rv tool` for global tools installation).
On the one hand, the ruby development ecosystem is in a much better state than Python was before uv. Bundler is way better than anything Python had before uv.
On the other hand, a uv-like all-in-one for Ruby is really interesting/tempting.
Rust is the new C. Go had a shot but went in an applications direction. I predict that very soon, perhaps even inside of three decades, Rust will become the dominant, first-choice systems programming language.
That is kinda my point though. None of those are kernels, device drivers, hypervisors, virtual machines, interrupt handlers, bootloaders, dynamic linkers; and writing such things in Go would be an uphill battle against the language's own design, much like the Go runtime itself. Being a GC'd language almost completely fences Go off from even being in the running for these, except for hobby projects trying to prove a point.
Universal applicability may not be necessary to write a Ruby installer, but it certainly is to have any hope of taking C's crown.
It's important to note that Microsoft's choice of Go for tsgo was because it would be easier to port the existing TypeScript codebase due to the structural similarity of TypeScript and Go. If writing from scratch, they likely would not have chosen Go.
Which is not to say that Go can't do well in tooling. Only that Go was not necessarily their first choice.
MS uses Go for tsc because they are basically doing a line by line rewrite of tsc from typescript to Go.
It's impossible to do this kind of rewrite from a GC language to a non GC one, especially Rust where the object soup of typescript will probably cause the borrow checker to explode.
I think that if MS or someone else decided to write a typescript type checker from scratch there is a high chance Rust will be chosen.
I think Go is going away. It occupies such a weird niche. People have said it's good for app backends, but you should really have exceptions (JS, Py, Java) for that sort of thing. For systems, just use Rust or worst case C++. For CLIs, it doesn't really matter. For things where portability matters like WASM, can't use Go. Bad syntax and type system on top of it.
What if Google spent all that time and money on something from the outside instead of inventing their own language? Like, Microsoft owns npm now.
I always thought of Go as a middle ground between C and Python. From C it gets simple syntax, from Python - "batteries included" part.
Deserializing JSON and XML is a breeze from my experience. And it's available out of the box. But I guess C++ will get there with reflection having been approved in C++26.
So I don't think it will go away (in the coming years at least), since a lot of tools is written in it.
Actually, I'd say this is where Go has a real advantage. Are any other mainstream languages both garbage-collected (for ease of development) and native-compiled (for ease of distribution)?
Maybe - but in this case, Ruby is written in C, it uses C extensions when performance matters, but tooling for the Ruby language itself is all in Ruby. Rust isn't replacing the use of C in the core of Ruby (yet) - it's stepping in to the area where Ruby would have been traditionally used.
Similar thing is in motion with the JS toolchains. Rewriting in Rust is easier than rewriting in C, but why didn't they previously rewrite in something like C++ or Go? I'm guessing because people were simply not interested.
uv has been the greatest development in the python ecosystem in the last decade.
super excited about rv! PLEASE, enable sponsorship on github.com or elsewhere. I want to donate $$$!!!
Has anyone ever actually had anything break from a Ruby version update? I know Matz basically never does breaking changes, last I remember is the 1.8.7 -> 1.9.2 update...
I've only ever just straight up downloaded the source and installed it myself, never had any issues with Ruby updates...
Depends what you mean by "break". There have been backwards-incompatible changes, but as you say, very few since the 1.8.7 to 1.9.X jump.
I can think of one meaningful breaking change going from 2.7 to 3.0, where the longtime behavior of creating an implicit "options hash" as the last argument to a method was finally removed. It was gradual though. First we got keyword arguments. Then keyword arguments got faster. Then there were two versions of warnings about the removal of the old, implicit options hash. Thus if you really wanted to kick the can down the road, you had about 5 years where you could be on a "supported" Ruby version without having fixed your code. Plus the change required was relatively simple outside of a few edge cases.
The best part was that most of the community was pretty good about upgrading gems across the years of warnings we had for this. Hats off to the maintainers and contributors for that!
As a long-time Rubyist and recent Python dabbler (due to pytorch) this is exciting! Uv and uvx certainly are great improvements in the Python ecosystem, but still have some quirks that I wonder how they will handle with rv:
- By default uv is creating isolated environments in the project directory and will download all dependencies over the network. For small stuff this isn't too bad, but re-downloading 700mb pytorch each time you clone a repo gets annoying very fast. Of course there are trade-offs with running updates less frequently (and uv has flags such as --offline and --refresh to avoid or force online access) but more sensible default behavior would be nice so that uv (and rv) keep you on the happy path during developing. Maybe updates could be run in the background by default.
- Also because the environments aren't shared in any way, each project directory consume a lot of disk space (10x checkouts = 10x pytorch on disk). More sensible caching across environments would be nice (links?).
- I am wondering if rv will support version operators such as rv install "~> 3.4.4" to get ruby ">= 3.4.4, < 3.5.0", which I think would help ensure everyone is running Ruby versions with security patches applied.
- uv includes the pip sub-command (similar to using gem install rather than bundle add) but because the environments are isolated this feels rather weird and I haven't really understood in which cases you should not just use "uv add" to update your project dependencies.
- Uv tries hard to support migration from legacy Python projects which don't have a pyproject.toml, but the Python eco-system is too fragmented for this to always work. I hope rv can avoid adding new config files, but really stick to the existing Gemfile approach.
- If a Python package includes a script with a different name than the package then the syntax is a bit annoying ('uvx --from package script' but not 'uvx script --from package' because this would get passed to the script). Uv already uses square brackets for optional project dependencies (e.g. 'uvx --from huggingface_hub[cli] hf') but since Ruby doesn't have these, maybe this would be an option for rv.
He he. If this article isn't proof that people don't really want "do just one thing and do it well" (besides the million flags of ls and find), nothing is :-)
This is cool! A frequent problem I've had with bundler is when the Gemfile lists a newer version of a gem (stringio) but the older version has already been activated. If you can get rid of such errors I would be so happy! Also I've had to frequently update bundler too often when updating a Rails site.
Yes, this is due to the effort to extract stdlib code into gems https://stdgems.org/
In your case, StringIO use to just be stdlib code so bundler (or rubygems) uses it. Later on it became a gem, so by requiring it before reading the Gemfile, bundler run into this problem of already having loaded the wrong version.
Everytime this happens the bundler team has to modify bundler, and as a user the fix is to upgrade bundler.
Is it really a name collision when they're effectively completely different namespaces? For example, no one thinks Rust's `cargo` might be the same thing as Ruby's obscure `cargo` library.
My lazy heuristic is to use nix-locate to search through the 100k packages in Nixpkgs, e.g.:
> nix-locate -r 'bin/uv'
Not perfect, but sort of useful for choosing names for executables for internal corporate projects, little wrapper scripts, etc. It's definitely still possible to find reasonable names!
But I've never done the analysis of such short names yet :D
On the one hand, it's nice to see Ruby and the Ruby tooling system getting some love.
On the other, I'm not sure if this is really needed. Most of this stuff already works fine in Ruby with Bundler. Did you know that Bundler already has a really nice syntax for inline requirements for single-file scripts?[0] Seems like a lot of people forgot. Installing Ruby hasn't generally been much of a hassle either AFAIK. Bundler also doesn't seem to have the Python venv problem - it works fine for keeping a bunch of gem versions around in the same Ruby install and only activating the specified ones. I think Gemfile and Gemfile.lock is what Python always wished they had. I guess more speed never hurt, but it never felt like bundler was painfully slow for me, even on huge codebases. So is there really a big win here?
Though I guess plenty of Python gurus probably feel the same way about the uv craze when their existing tooling works well enough for them.
[0] https://bundler.io/guides/bundler_in_a_single_file_ruby_scri...
Same. Python’s virtual env always seemed to me like a weirdly complicated workaround for the limitations of the Python package managers.
Ruby/Bundler doesn’t have any of these problems, and nothing on their roadmap really excite me.
Except maybe the binary Ruby distribution, but it’s a once or twice a year thing, so not exactly a major pain point.
Right. Everyone seemed to be struggling with problems in python now that we’re already solved in Ruby 2007-2010.
I only from time to time want to use some Python, but virtual env is always too complicated to me to get into after some months.
Use uv, works very well.
I mean conceptually, venv and all that stuff, I can't wrap my head around this, why anyone would do it that way. Have a project.deb file with everything in it, done. Like everyone else does it. With Python I need to switch to that environment when I go to the directory and all of that.
This: "Then, run the script in an isolated virtual environment"
With uv you don't deal with any of that stuff though, it works as you describe.
The author of this post is a Bundler maintainer, so I can assure you at least that he's aware.
As someone who uses Nix and direnv to manage development environments, the additional speed will be nice for me. I don't need rv to supply a Ruby for me at all, but just a really fast Bundler would be nice.
My environment reasserts that the correct things are installed every time I change into the directory. A no-op Bundle install takes a couple hundred milliseconds, which is not great for something you want to run constantly and automatically. Getting that down to tens of milliseconds will be really nice for me!
I agree mostly, though I guess it is easier for newbies if they only have to learn one tool instead of three more focused ones (bundler/chruby/ruby-install in my case, but the latter two have mostly equivalent variants).
It's fun to see package management improvements move full circle—lessons from Ruby package management contributed to Rust, Rust is helping improve package management for Python, and now Python package management is inspiring improvements for Ruby!
It looks cool but I feel this kind of tool is only useful if Ruby is the only language you use. I have to manage several runtimes for most projects. I've used asdf for years and recently switched to mise: these tools already download pre compiled binaries for Ruby, plus pretty much any other language runtime.
It's likely that you get better per language features for something specific to the language though. We end up in exactly the same kind of frustration, that for some random project you need this specific tool that does dependency management of the specific runtime. asdf and mise both respect a .tool-versions file, I'd rather see things go more in that direction with some kind of standard.
A flake.nix file plus a direnv `.envrc` file with `use flake` has solved this for me.
When I cd into a project directory I get all of the tools that project needs, at the exact versions they were tested with. When I cd out of the directory, they go away. If the dependencies are well behaved (e.g. they don't do any self-modification, which is annoyingly common in the npm world) then it's often pretty easy to track all of your deps this way, imported from your npm package-lock.json or similar.
Ask your favorite LLM to write your flake.nix file for you, they're pretty good at it. I've been able to drop all of the bespoke language-specific tool versioning stuff `nvm`, `uv`, `rvm`, etc for all my personal projects, and it makes it easy to add deps from outside the language-specific package managers, like ffmpeg and lame.
If you still want to package your stuff natively for the language ecosystem, you still need all the usual metadata and you also want to specify version constraints for your dependencies and so on.
Typically I wire up something like uv or rv (or Poetry or Bundler, which are fine but slower) to shell activation using Devenv, then autogenerate the Nix package from the language-native dependency specification files.
mise is really nice in this respect in that it manages the tools and the environment, so you don't need direnv as well. It also has hooks for running arbitrary commands when you cd in (although you can do that with direnv because it basically just runs .envrc as a script).
Flake.nix is nix specific I would guess?
nix manages the environment too, all direnv is doing in my setup is automatically entering and leaving environments based on my current working directory. Looks like mise does that automatically, which is neat.
mise looks nice, uses PATH manipulation rather than asdf's slow wrappers, and it supports Windows, which is a point over nix. nix only supports unixy environments like Linux, Mac, and WSL.
What might tempt a mise user to try nix are its just truly stupendous collection of packages, so more tools are available. You can also easily add your own packages, either upstream or privately. nix is bigger, more ambitious, more principled, but more complicated. You can build an entire fully-reproducible operating system from a short nix config. It's really cool! But also a lot more to learn, more surface area, more places to get confused or to spend time fiddling with configs rather than solving the actual problem.
This is the way. Nix, despite all of its issues, is still the best for reproducible developer environments. I just don't write my own flakes anymore.
Or you can use a nix wrapper like jetify's devbox.
devenv.sh
Nix is too hard.
Mise is way easier.
It also brings awesome task files... With it's usage lib
mise uses `uv` as a backend for some python things (like python tools via `uvx`). If `rv` develops in the same direction as `uv` then it could be the default backend for `mise` ruby things.
I've been very happy with `mise` since switching from asdf, and also very happy with uv in general. I think they play nice together.
I sent jdx this article, so maybe it will happen sooner rather than later
Judging by the current project status it'll probably be a while...
(looks like they've only got installing certain ruby versions working for now.)
[0] https://github.com/spinel-coop/rv/blob/main/docs/PLANS.md
I agree with the sentiment as I also use asdf but feel at this stage this critique of the project feels more than a little unfair.
We really don’t have the features they’ve been discussing including the npx like feature and easily just run Ruby without installer headaches that it seems they’ve gone after solving.
Reframing, id like to ask that .tool-versions be supported as a place where we can define Ruby versions. Then both tools with a little tweaking could pretty much be used side by side.
I don't think I really criticized the project. I said it was cool, I had a look at it. I just put down that I think there are pros and cons to the single language approach and, for me, the cons outweigh the pros.
Wait, how do you get precompiled Rubies with mise? I still have to compile with default settings, and the docs only mention that it uses ruby-build behind the scenes: https://mise.jdx.dev/lang/ruby.html
I don't think you can. I also don't know why people care so much about it - I work full time with ruby and compiling a new version, which maybe takes 10 minutes, a couple times a year is no big deal.
I think it comes mostly from CI environments that start entirely clean before every run. 10 minutes every time a commit is pushed is not pleasant. That's not how I'd like CI to work, but sadly it seems to be the current state of things.
I'm sure rv is great, but am I the only one who needs one such tool not only for Ruby, but also Python, JavaScript, and Java, at least, and finds it weird to run 4+ of those?
I put my hope in mise-en-place - https://mise.jdx.dev
What do people think? One tool per language, or one to rule them all?
I think it's probably for the best to have a different tool for each language/platform. Not every language or platform matches feature for feature in that the options will already be different for each language, and you're likely to have such a "universal" tool come up short in support of one language or another.
I really appreciate cargo a lot for what it brings, even if it's calling different tools under the covers. Similarly, I appreciate deno in that it brings all the tooling and the runtime in a single executable (box). I've migrated most of my scripting to TypeScript using deno at this point because of that distributive ease. Even if the shebang itself is a bit sloppy.
Aside, would be cool to have a VS Code extension that would to file type detection based on a shebang at the top of the file. Making it easier to do extensionless script files with language support.
We've been using mise since it was called rtx at $DAYJOB, and it's caused many a headache (mostly around upgrades/backcompat/etc.). We use it both on dev machines and in CI. In spite of that, it’s decent at what it does, and I wouldn’t soon replace it with individual version managers, given that we have similar needs.
However…more than once we've seen language runtimes that used to be available exclusively via plug-ins be migrated to be internal to mise, which broke everyone's setups in strange and hilarious ways, and caused countless hours of debugging.
Less bad overall than using individual runtime version managers for sure. But the next time mise costs us a bunch of hours fixing multiple engineers' setups, I intend to find another solution, even if that means writing my own. It’s burned us nearly one too many times.
Do you have any examples what tends to break? We used pyenv/rbenv/sdkman etc. individually, then moved to asdf and now arrived at mise. Not using yet for CI just developer stuff and so far didn't have issues. But this is quite recent for us, so didn't have to deal with upgrade issues yet.
We manage mise itself via homebrew. Sometimes when upgrading mise itself, it doesn’t seem to handle being upgraded gracefully, and loses track of installed runtimes even if we manually kick it in our upgrade scripts. Restarting the shell entirely seems to be the only way to fix it.
That, and with Ruby, Node, and at least one other language/tool IIRC, when support for those things moved internal, we had to make a bunch of changes to our scripts to handle that change with effectively no warning. That involved checking to see if the third-party plug-in was installed, uninstalling it if so, and then installing the language based on the built-in support. In the meantime, the error messages encountered were not super helpful in understanding what was going on.
I’m hopeful that these types of issues are behind us now that most of the things we care about are internal, but still, it’s been pretty annoying.
In theory it would be nice to have one tool for all languages but I think it's never going to be practical because programming languages can be different in arbitrary ways. I can't imagine how the same tool could ever be ergonomic for managing projects written in C++, Scheme, Haskell and Bash for example. Mise (and other tools for managing development environments like Flox and asdf – I prefer Flox myself) only implement a subset of the features of languages specific tools like cargo/uv/rv. For example cargo can do all of this out of the box (and you can also extend it with more subcommands):
* manage dependencies
* format and lint code
* publish package on crates.io
* open the project documentation
* install binaries
* build/run the project
* run tests
* run benchmarks
Uv/rv don't (yet?) do all of that but they also manage Ruby/Python versions (which is done separately by rustup in Rust).
I'm a happy long-term user of asdf. https://github.com/asdf-vm/asdf
The real selling point of mise imo is that it handles more than just languages - including automatic postgres setup in your dependencies is great)
What is the real problem being solved here? For all the issues that bundler still has, rv doesn't seem to address most of them. Bundler has been fast enough for a while now, how fast does this need to be? And do we now have to know rust to contribute?
If indirect is salty that the rubygems/bundler didn't turn out yet to be what he wanted, I wonder whether a simpler and faster alternative to bundler written in RUBY wouldn't be the answer, with incremental merges into bundler. Gel was mostly there, even if most never knew about it, but at least it got the bundler ppl to merge the pub grub resolver.
Naturally written in Rust.
I could start taking bets every time I now see a "new kind of tool" for XYZ.
I am firmly in the camp tools for specific ecosystems should be written on the language of said ecosystem.
If one is hindered by the language, maybe that isn't the right ecosystem, or therein lies the opportunity for language toolchain improvements.
Or... rust lends itself to fast executing CLI tooling... and that no language/hammer is best when you need a screwdriver.
Plenty of languages do offer AOT toolchains, and CLIs have been part of computing since we have teletypes.
In this case, we're talking about ruby... does ruby output AOT, portable executables in the box?
One thing I love about Ruby is it never devolved into ?VM hell like Python did. Yes, there are a bunch of ruby version managers, but there's only one bundler no matter how you get get ruby installed. I like some ideas here, but I'm also afraid this could be step one toward that python nightmare.
It seems pretty different in that rv waited to take inspiration from a relatively clear winner in an entirely different ecosystem, after quite some time. I think it makes sense to be optimistic.
not being dismissive of the effort or other tools and languages, not trying to convince anyone
After decades of Java (ant/maven), then Scala (sbt), then JS (npm), then TS, switching to Go (Make) some years ago made many problems go away.
The tooling (test, ...) inside the main tool (Rust still a little better I think), now tools/versions inside go.mod, the result of my work being a binary I can run with systemd, embedding files into the binary, all of that removed a lot of dep management issues, building issues, bundling issues, and the need for e.g. Docker for many use cases (which I feel many people only use to package .jar files or gems into something that can run in production).
Seems rv wants the same, "Our end goal is a completely new kind of management tool, [...] Not a version manager, or a dependency manager, but both of those things and more. I’m currently calling this category a “language manager”"
> We expect to be able to silently run equivalents of both rvm install and bundle install at the beginning of every bundle exec,
Do I understand right it doesn't use bundler code for resolving gem requirements dependency tree, but uses it's own code meant to be compatible? Hmmm.
And also producing the `Gemfile.lock`, which has had kind of a lot of churn in bundler, which bundler has had to work to keep from breaking for people even when it's assumed they're all using (different versions of) bundler.
I remember bitching to André at a conference that the Gemfile.lock format was a right hassle to deal with for literally any other tool, before I realised he was bundler maintainer at the time...
I am so excited about this!! Ruby tooling is already pretty good, but we can do better. I will try to contribute. Now we just need types
Take a look at Crystal for types: https://crystal-lang.org/
Crystal is cool but the only thing it shares in common with Ruby is a similar syntax.
If you actually want types in Ruby, you should check out Sorbet: https://sorbet.org/
Please no types... They're worse than pointless for a dynamically typed language.
Static analysis through type hints brings plenty of benefits to a dynamic language, such as helping to eliminate bugs at runtime (albeit not perfectly) and making it easier to grok a codebase. It’s a trade off and Ruby is as dynamic as it gets. But there is a point to it
My beautiful experience with sorbet: Yeah, ducktyping? We don't do that here.
Depending on a library that uses ducktyping (like any sane library following the Ruby conventions)? Good luck writing a wrapper for it. Or just disable type checking.
This goes so much against the Ruby vibe that I advise you to just go and use Rust instead if you hate Ruby that much that you want to butcher it with types.
Sorbet has its flaws. I didn’t like it either. Having used TypeScript extensively, there is a way to do it right and a way to do it wrong. I’d classify TypeScript as the ideal way to introduce static types into a very dynamic language, given its extensive flexibility to handle dynamic features in a language (e.g. smart type inference, ‘is’ keyword, very flexible generics). Sorbet doesn’t have a lot of those features
Ruby has a strong history and tradition of TDD/unit testing. This is partially a crutch for its lack of static type analysis. Ultimately checking for bugs before running code is very useful
All dynamically typed Ruby competitors like
have embraced Gradual Typing/Type Inference.You use typed variables/typed function signatures when it's convenient, they give you some compile-time contracts, easy documentation and probably even speed. Otherwise they don't exist. I don't do Ruby, but Gradual Types/Type Inference is a no-brainer for dynamic languages, practically no drawback, only benefits. (And popular statically typed languages such as C/C++, Java, Rust support Type Inference, or are going there too.)
Cool. People who want gradual typing can use those and leave Ruby alone.
> I don't do Ruby
So why have an opinion?
Languages I use: Ruby, C++, Odin, R. I'm not about to to around telling Rust, Python or Typescript people they're doing their languages wrong, even if there's things I hate about those languages. I just don't use them.
Ruby already has this with Sorbet. Nobody is forcing you to use it, are they?
It seems you have a lot of opinion here without really discussing your problem with type hints though. What is it you dislike?
I use Ruby regularly, have used it for more than a decade, and I wish it had something like a TypeScript equivalent (Sorbet is sorta this but not enough). Every time I work with a Ruby codebase without Sorbet, it’s a lot of guessing and praying that test coverage is good enough. It’s not fun having to find out in prod there’s dumb bugs that would have been caught by static analysis. Something I experience virtually never in TypeScript, the other language I’ve also used for a decade
Even after over a decade with TypeScript, I'm still kind of mixed on it... there are a lot of times where trying to wrangle typing is more painful than it should need to be... I'll often just cast to any, then I have to add a comment to suppress the error message with the default config. I use deno a lot and tend not to mess with the default configuration there. Even with node/npm, I still don't do much with the tsconfig beyond what a minimal need is.
It's not as painful as earlier versions and is generally okay to work with... but there are definitely times you need to work around the typing as opposed to with it. For example extending/using context in hono/oak/koa so you get hinting, but want your endpoint handlers in separate modules. It gets very messy, very quickly.
> It seems you have a lot of opinion here without really discussing your problem with type hints. What is it you dislike?
It's runtime overhead (or you make a transpiler which then makes the language less dynamic), makes metaprogramming more annoying (other languages solve this with an "any" type which just defeats the purpose), and the "problem" it solves can be solved with tests which you should be writing anyway.
I do use statically typed languages BTW, I just prefer that if I'm going to go through the rigmarole of types that I'm going to get some actual benefit, namely an order of magnitude more performance.
My opinion is probably this since I don't work for a large corporation, I have my own startup, so I value my time a lot. I'm ok with trade-offs, I just think adding type hints to a dynamic language isn't a good trade off; it's almost all downside.
Edit:
> guessing and praying that test coverage is good enough.
You can always improve your test coverage...
For me, at least with TypeScript the single biggest advantage is the hinting you get from 3rd party packages/modules. This goes for building modules as well, you can use jsdoc directly, but it's even more cumbersome than TS imo.
It's kind of annoying that static type introspection has become the norm for language servers because live environments are so much better. With Ruby you have the REPL and there have been IDEs and tools that allow runtime reflection which is just so much better (think Lisp or Smalltalk). LSPs are nice for static languages but compared to live environments they're a step down...
Pyright catches an awful lot of dumb mistakes I make in Python.
Sidenote, but you might also want to give basedpyright a try (basically FOSS Pylance reimplementation): https://docs.basedpyright.com/
Sorbet can actually make programs crash at runtime if a variable's type doesn't match its annotation, right? It's not as busted as some other gradual typing implementations.
I'm definitely in favour of gradual typing but runtime checking is already really easy to do if that's what you want. Just add a rightward assignment patten match to your method. e.g.
Personally I think the RBS-Inine format is the way forward. Sorbet has experimental support for it too.https://sorbet.org/docs/rbs-support
Oh exactly what I wanted - runtime overhead, on top of its lack of ability to accomodate ducktyped external dependencies in any sane way.
It does welcome nil proliferation though! Just sprinkle some `nilable` around and you're set to continue the actual scourge of the language.
Many smart engineers (including Guido) disagree with you, and have added static types to Python, Javascript, Dart, Elixir, Hack and surely some I'm forgetting.
I use statically typed languages. There's benefits.
There's also benefits to dynamically typed languages, namely runtime metaprogramming.
Dynamic typing + type annotations is the worst of both worlds for questionable benefit.
This looks like a really nice improvement to the Ruby ecosystem. Great job and thank you to those involved.
I've definitely felt the awkwardness of gems being so compartmentalized by project that using system level dev tools that I like to have available for all my projects feel out of place within my project's Bundler-centric world.
I go between different languages a lot so having a command line interface that is consistent with the one I use in Python (uv) would definitely be appreciated. I mostly use Ruby for single-file scripts with no dependencies, which means I don't do projects often enough to remember how to use bundle/gem/rvm/whatever. It seems to me like `rv` is not quite ready to fully replace them just yet but I'm excited to see where the project goes.
I'm also excited about `rv tool` because I've been having to re-install rubocop and ruby-lsp gems every time the minor version of the system Ruby is updated. It's just a few commands every year (and I'm sure it's a skill issue) but having things "just work" with a single `rvx rubocop` command will be sweet.
"Not a version manager, or a dependency manager, but both of those things and more. I’m currently calling this category a “language manager”, but if you have a better name idea, let me know!"
Language Orchestrator?
fast installs will be great. compiling ruby is the only slow part left in our provisioning process.
why are you compiling ruby during provisioning?
to this end I have been deploying with the fullstaq-ruby builds for some years now.
Oi!
https://github.com/regularfry/rv
(Kidding! Looks interesting.)
The more tools the better. Thanks!
As an idea: add advantages compared to rvm, rbenv, etc. Or a comparison table
> Ruby Versions: Ruby 3.4.1 and up
It turns out that this is only for the latest ruby versions :(
But I will follow the development!
> add advantages compared to rvm, rbenv, etc
If I understand correctly, rvm/rbenv only install Ruby versions, and you use bundler to install dependencies. rv seems to manage everything (like uv in Python) – Ruby versions and dependencies, and adds things on top of that (like `rv tool` for global tools installation).
On the one hand, the ruby development ecosystem is in a much better state than Python was before uv. Bundler is way better than anything Python had before uv.
On the other hand, a uv-like all-in-one for Ruby is really interesting/tempting.
I find it interesting how Rust is gaining momentum in tooling like uv and now rv.
Rust is the new C. Go had a shot but went in an applications direction. I predict that very soon, perhaps even inside of three decades, Rust will become the dominant, first-choice systems programming language.
Go can do just as well in tooling.
Microsoft chose Go for tsc rewrite. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/typescript-native-...
And then there's esbuild, also in Go, which revolutionized web bundling speed https://esbuild.github.io
That is kinda my point though. None of those are kernels, device drivers, hypervisors, virtual machines, interrupt handlers, bootloaders, dynamic linkers; and writing such things in Go would be an uphill battle against the language's own design, much like the Go runtime itself. Being a GC'd language almost completely fences Go off from even being in the running for these, except for hobby projects trying to prove a point.
Universal applicability may not be necessary to write a Ruby installer, but it certainly is to have any hope of taking C's crown.
It's important to note that Microsoft's choice of Go for tsgo was because it would be easier to port the existing TypeScript codebase due to the structural similarity of TypeScript and Go. If writing from scratch, they likely would not have chosen Go.
Which is not to say that Go can't do well in tooling. Only that Go was not necessarily their first choice.
How is Go structurally similar to TypeScript?
It doesn't even have advanced generics like TypeScript, nor union types. No classes and no heritance either.
Unless you have a source, I'd say that's a very debatable speculation.
My guess is they chose Go for the same reason most users do: it's good enough, easy to grasp, has a decent std lib and is easy to grasp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qowKUW82U
Around the 13 minute mark, Anders goes into it. IIRC, the big things were the GC and them both supporting cyclic data structures.
Makes sense. Cyclic data with Rust is not trivial, to put it mildly. And GC does make things much easier.
GC vs no GC will impact your code structure more than anything else.
MS uses Go for tsc because they are basically doing a line by line rewrite of tsc from typescript to Go.
It's impossible to do this kind of rewrite from a GC language to a non GC one, especially Rust where the object soup of typescript will probably cause the borrow checker to explode.
I think that if MS or someone else decided to write a typescript type checker from scratch there is a high chance Rust will be chosen.
I love both Go and Rust but Go is GC no? Where rust shines is on its safety at compile time and lifetime/borrow/memory model imho
both are awesome tools!
GC is ok for these use cases. In fact with such short-lived processes, GC is probably not even running before it terminates.
I think Go is going away. It occupies such a weird niche. People have said it's good for app backends, but you should really have exceptions (JS, Py, Java) for that sort of thing. For systems, just use Rust or worst case C++. For CLIs, it doesn't really matter. For things where portability matters like WASM, can't use Go. Bad syntax and type system on top of it.
What if Google spent all that time and money on something from the outside instead of inventing their own language? Like, Microsoft owns npm now.
I always thought of Go as a middle ground between C and Python. From C it gets simple syntax, from Python - "batteries included" part.
Deserializing JSON and XML is a breeze from my experience. And it's available out of the box. But I guess C++ will get there with reflection having been approved in C++26.
So I don't think it will go away (in the coming years at least), since a lot of tools is written in it.
> For CLIs, it doesn't really matter.
Actually, I'd say this is where Go has a real advantage. Are any other mainstream languages both garbage-collected (for ease of development) and native-compiled (for ease of distribution)?
You can compile to WASM from Go.
Maybe - but in this case, Ruby is written in C, it uses C extensions when performance matters, but tooling for the Ruby language itself is all in Ruby. Rust isn't replacing the use of C in the core of Ruby (yet) - it's stepping in to the area where Ruby would have been traditionally used.
Similar thing is in motion with the JS toolchains. Rewriting in Rust is easier than rewriting in C, but why didn't they previously rewrite in something like C++ or Go? I'm guessing because people were simply not interested.
Finally Linus accepted it into Linux.
It's his birthday today btw hbd
It is not his birthday. Today is my birthday and you almost made me very excited
Torvalds was right all along to hold out against C++.
uv has been the greatest development in the python ecosystem in the last decade. super excited about rv! PLEASE, enable sponsorship on github.com or elsewhere. I want to donate $$$!!!
Has anyone ever actually had anything break from a Ruby version update? I know Matz basically never does breaking changes, last I remember is the 1.8.7 -> 1.9.2 update...
I've only ever just straight up downloaded the source and installed it myself, never had any issues with Ruby updates...
Depends what you mean by "break". There have been backwards-incompatible changes, but as you say, very few since the 1.8.7 to 1.9.X jump.
I can think of one meaningful breaking change going from 2.7 to 3.0, where the longtime behavior of creating an implicit "options hash" as the last argument to a method was finally removed. It was gradual though. First we got keyword arguments. Then keyword arguments got faster. Then there were two versions of warnings about the removal of the old, implicit options hash. Thus if you really wanted to kick the can down the road, you had about 5 years where you could be on a "supported" Ruby version without having fixed your code. Plus the change required was relatively simple outside of a few edge cases.
The best part was that most of the community was pretty good about upgrading gems across the years of warnings we had for this. Hats off to the maintainers and contributors for that!
They moved quite some things out of the standard library so you need require/gems for some things which used to be batteries included.
Also small changes like File.exists? being deprecated and then removed.
Yeah, and for some of these changes they gave you warnings for like a year straight in preparation.
As a long-time Rubyist and recent Python dabbler (due to pytorch) this is exciting! Uv and uvx certainly are great improvements in the Python ecosystem, but still have some quirks that I wonder how they will handle with rv:
- By default uv is creating isolated environments in the project directory and will download all dependencies over the network. For small stuff this isn't too bad, but re-downloading 700mb pytorch each time you clone a repo gets annoying very fast. Of course there are trade-offs with running updates less frequently (and uv has flags such as --offline and --refresh to avoid or force online access) but more sensible default behavior would be nice so that uv (and rv) keep you on the happy path during developing. Maybe updates could be run in the background by default.
- Also because the environments aren't shared in any way, each project directory consume a lot of disk space (10x checkouts = 10x pytorch on disk). More sensible caching across environments would be nice (links?).
- Using uv to turn Python files into standalone/self-contained scripts is really great (https://peps.python.org/pep-0723/) and I hope rv can mirror this capability well. Because the lock file isn't included in the script header it requires some configuration options to make runs repeatable (e.g. https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/scripts/#improving-reproduc...).
- I am wondering if rv will support version operators such as rv install "~> 3.4.4" to get ruby ">= 3.4.4, < 3.5.0", which I think would help ensure everyone is running Ruby versions with security patches applied.
- uv includes the pip sub-command (similar to using gem install rather than bundle add) but because the environments are isolated this feels rather weird and I haven't really understood in which cases you should not just use "uv add" to update your project dependencies.
- Uv tries hard to support migration from legacy Python projects which don't have a pyproject.toml, but the Python eco-system is too fragmented for this to always work. I hope rv can avoid adding new config files, but really stick to the existing Gemfile approach.
- If a Python package includes a script with a different name than the package then the syntax is a bit annoying ('uvx --from package script' but not 'uvx script --from package' because this would get passed to the script). Uv already uses square brackets for optional project dependencies (e.g. 'uvx --from huggingface_hub[cli] hf') but since Ruby doesn't have these, maybe this would be an option for rv.
Hard links are already used, when available. Are you on windows?
uv doesn't redownload every dep every time. If the dep is the same, it uses a hardlink: no additional download, no additional space taken.
Pip subcommands are here to ease the transition from the old ecosystem to the new.
Edit: maybe I need to investigate this again because it isn't working for me. In a usual month I downloaded pytorch through UV maybe 100 times.
Not true, each virtual environment has its own physical copy on disk.
Since creating venvs is usually per project you have many downloads / copies.
See: https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/1495
He he. If this article isn't proof that people don't really want "do just one thing and do it well" (besides the million flags of ls and find), nothing is :-)
This is cool! A frequent problem I've had with bundler is when the Gemfile lists a newer version of a gem (stringio) but the older version has already been activated. If you can get rid of such errors I would be so happy! Also I've had to frequently update bundler too often when updating a Rails site.
Just using `bundle exec` should handle that - that's what bundler is for.
Yep, didn't work.
Yes, this is due to the effort to extract stdlib code into gems https://stdgems.org/
In your case, StringIO use to just be stdlib code so bundler (or rubygems) uses it. Later on it became a gem, so by requiring it before reading the Gemfile, bundler run into this problem of already having loaded the wrong version.
Everytime this happens the bundler team has to modify bundler, and as a user the fix is to upgrade bundler.
You can see they had to vendor a lot of code from default gems to avoid this problem: https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/tree/c230844f2eab31478f...
Nice André!
and now ruby community is being shoveled with rust
The first production use of Rust was a Ruby extension.
Really? What was that? That's awesome
Very unfortunate name collision with rv for R (https://github.com/A2-ai/rv).
Is it really a name collision when they're effectively completely different namespaces? For example, no one thinks Rust's `cargo` might be the same thing as Ruby's obscure `cargo` library.
It's not a library. It's an executable that needs to be on the PATH to use it. And the executable has the exact same name.
At this point, I think the namespace for 2-3 character CLI binaries has probably been clobbered several times over.
My lazy heuristic is to use nix-locate to search through the 100k packages in Nixpkgs, e.g.:
> nix-locate -r 'bin/uv'
Not perfect, but sort of useful for choosing names for executables for internal corporate projects, little wrapper scripts, etc. It's definitely still possible to find reasonable names!
But I've never done the analysis of such short names yet :D
So does the example I provided.
You might use R and Ruby. Wouldn't be unheard of. Alias ftw.
No need because there's chruby and/or asdf that do it elegantly. Looks like NIH reventing rvm.
One of the team members is the creator of rbenv. It was litearlly invented here!