So I’m also highly disappointed by the fact that namespaced packages has been out of the pictures. Package and source code management is defacto equivalent to file management? Who of you has seen a computer with a flat file system? No hierarchy = no order. Some of the reasons for making “creative names” is pure bollocks to me.
-
Make creative names - I’m not creative bloody hell, would have study arts if I was, I’m a technical person with OSD and I don’t want to have the burden of figuring out a “good” or “bad” name for my package. This argument is so invalid… it is basically fully estetical and unless you like dictatorship it makes no sense. Also, and VERY importantly, if you have namespace you also have the option to write any creative name you want for your package. Noone will ever stop
wycatsto naming his package aswycats/pistonrather thanwycats/game-engine. In other words you the freedom to do what you want, while the previous option you are taking away one of the possible freedoms. Even if you want allow packages to be published on flat namespace, but reserve each username or something for each user. If people want let them publish how they want. Otherwise this is so anti open. -
Tags are never going to cut it. Hierarchies make sense, not only for source code, not only for industry, they make sense for life on earth, for artificial intelligence, for organizations, for goverments, for games build on top of APIs build on top of game engines, built on top maths libraries … and on and on. Tags are designed as a commentary addition. Also as mentioned if someone uses the same tag, how is that making any difference than the namespaces?
-
Squatters - they are here to stay and thrive. Whether it is on flat namespace or not it doesn’t matter. However, if you reserve the username namespace for each user, and you don’t allow multiple users, you have some chance of at least putting under some control. Both choices do not really make any difference for this, so this is 100% invalid argument.
-
The cost of namespacing - they are bad because… you don’t like them? In this thread we still have not been presented with absolutely any reliable, non subjective, reason why namespaces are bad and what is this “cost” associated with them? Is it someone is lazy to write
use ba::ba::ba::html as html? The only cost is the initial transition from flat to namespaced crates that’s it. I challenge anyone else to present me with good examples of significant costs of using namespacing, which would somehow be not present in the flat namespace. -
Again, if needed allow people to publish both under their username/organiszation/reserved namespace and on the flat. But please don’t take this liberty for
I like it so this is what we doreason.