busybox-w32 VS Dagger2

Even in environments such as win32, we have https://frippery.org/busybox/ that is just fucking awesome. Staying the size below an 1mb while being extremely fast. Unlike the shitty python package which has 40mb archive size and leave breadcrumbs for me to cleanup all over my filesystem.

Win32 port is here: https://frippery.org/busybox/

Look into busybox for windows https://frippery.org/busybox/. Pretty bad ass even with it’s downsides of missing applets and such

Vim by itself means no supporting unix environment. It's useful to call out to powerful external tools not present by default on Windows. I fill that gap with busybox-w32. It's not a big deal once solved.

Sure, it's not necessary, but a few simple, nice tools (<600kiB for an entire suite of extended unix utilities) makes thing a whole lot simpler on a platform devoid of nice tools.

To operate on many files you'll need better tools than what Windows gives you. One option is busybox-w32 (important caveat: doesn't support unicode paths), which will get you some basic command line tools. For example, to gzip compress every file under the current directory, including subdirectories (leaving the originals behind with -k):

busybox-w32 includes a cal applet. If that's all you care about, you can just rename busybox.exe to cal.exe.

busybox-w32: standard unix utilities for Windows. It's a BusyBox port.

IHMO, even better is to just use POSIX sh in your Makefile and simply make it a build requirement. It's easy to obtain a reasonable sh even on Windows (Cygwin, MSYS2, busybox-w32), and to further support exactly this I include sh alongside make in my development kit distribution. This uniformity lets me hit all operating systems with the same Makefile. I use EXE from the environment to determine the binary file extension, if any.

There used to be a thing called "releasable references" which was that. It was removed, though: https://github.com/google/dagger/issues/1117

As said in the title, we will focus on the dependency inversion principle and one of its application : dependency injection. For production-ready applications, it would be better to rely on a framework and not implement its own container. For it, the java ecosystem have 3 frameworks available : Spring, Guice and Dagger.

At Reddit, we use Dagger 2 for handling dependency injection (DI) in our Android application. As we’ve scaled the application over the years, we’ve accrued a bit of technical debt in how we have approached this problem.

Confusing. I initially thought someone ported the Dagger DI framework to Python: https://dagger.dev/

I'm currently using Dagger and Anvil for my DI needs. It's been working really well, especially around what Anvil permits in terms of multibindings defined on the type declaration rather than in a module. For example:

Great job, I have been waiting for this feature/fix for a long time https://github.com/google/dagger/issues/2328

Dagger