Today’s software tools have weird names. We call a “library” some collection of functions that you can use in your program.
I think that software repositories (where apt downloads your programs from) should be the actual libraries, since that’s where you go to get your information; Meanwhile individual packages of information should be called books because they are one solid object containing a bundle of information.
The term library in the context of software predates software repositories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_(computing)
It’s basically as old as the computer itself.
Literal libraries of punch cards.
A repository is where something is stored, and if it is usable it is a library.
- A repository of books that can be read is a book library.
- A repository of code that can be imported is a code library.
- A repository of music that can be played is a music library.
what are sections, chapters, indices? Who’s the librarian?
we don’t need to go all the way into a metaphor
Late Fees!
sshhh 🤫
I think repository makes more sense than library. A ‘repo’ is also a large storage of something that is very often indexed and catalogued for easy retrieval as well. It also at least ‘feels’ more appropriate for something usually remotely accessed, like package manager repos.
Of course, my well has been thoroughly poisoned on this topic, but I generally agree with others that an analogy doesn’t and shouldn’t have to carry through all the way.
books is a specific type. library is just a different word for collection. So calling them books would be wrong. Because library does not imply a book. In example you can have a library of videos or a library of images.
You are right, but I do want to point at that “library” is based on the Latin word librarium which literally translates to “a place for books”.
Agree with you on what we should represent as a software library. People tend to search and query for pockets of information in a library. Libraries tend to index and organise to make this easier. Libraries also tend to manage versions (aka editions) of this information. Where as individual packages manage isolated pieces of information; there can be a version set on them but they are unaware of other versions much like a book
However, in terms of calling individual bundle of information, books, might be a hard sell for everyone accustomed to what a book represents. Term which is rarely used in the context of a software system (maybe in accounting ledger-like systems). Book is a series of information bound by the context, a story, its trying to convey. Which is exactly what an individual package represents. Book is a package and that makes sense, going back in time, throwing weight on calling a package/bundle a book might have held well.
As you’ve mentioned, two other common terms are package and a bundle. So one way I could see myself looking at this is: a library, such as NPM/apt, contains packages, and a package is a book or a collection of associated books.
The metapor is that the individual package is a library of exported functions (the books). Package managers are more like inter-library loans in this metaphor, but I think that is pushing the analogy further than is useful.
Most computer terminology was created by neckbeard engineers in the early 60’s who hadn’t seen a vagina since they came out through one. I’ve been a proponent of updating the nomenclature for easier reading a long time but I’ve come to realize that’s how you end up with PSscript, so here we are.
What does a vagina have to do with libraries…?
There is some overlap (N-ish SFW) but not in the way they intended.
