Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If this project is dead, just tell us

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 325 posts

Re: If this project is dead, just tell us

#51

Post by madeofpalk »

josteink wrote: post #24
mikkelam wrote: post #8

Pipenv has spawned so much controvery.. One big shitfest. Python packaging in general is such a messy ecosystem

> Python packaging in general is such a messy ecosystem Not just messy. It’s probably worst in class. I at least can’t come up with a single worse package-management story which I do know of. Edit: I’m talking about platforms with actual package-management which sucks, not platforms with the absence of package-management all together.

I thought NPM was everyone's favourite hated package manager?

Re: If this project is dead, just tell us

#52

Post by hultner »

josteink wrote: post #24
mikkelam wrote: post #8

Pipenv has spawned so much controvery.. One big shitfest. Python packaging in general is such a messy ecosystem

> Python packaging in general is such a messy ecosystem Not just messy. It’s probably worst in class. I at least can’t come up with a single worse package-management story which I do know of. Edit: I’m talking about platforms with actual package-management which sucks, not platforms with the absence of package-management all together.

As someone who's been in software development for two the better part of two decades now I would say that's far beyond the truth.

Yes it's not great right now and it's not completely clear if I should recommend a new user pip+venv, pipenv, pyenv, poetry or conda and that's a big problem, Python was actually quite early to handle dependencies and packaging in a standardized and structured way. I remember that most of the projects I worked on early on in my career more or less completely relied on vendoring dependencies, if packaging systems existed they were of either very complex or the one that came with your os/distro.

However Python currently needs to catch up, we need some alignment and a clear path forward, it would also be great to have an official way of building artefacts. There's plenty of ways today but no great blessed way to recommend a newcomer.

Re: If this project is dead, just tell us

#53

Post by madeofpalk »

josteink wrote: post #24
mikkelam wrote: post #8

Pipenv has spawned so much controvery.. One big shitfest. Python packaging in general is such a messy ecosystem

> Python packaging in general is such a messy ecosystem Not just messy. It’s probably worst in class. I at least can’t come up with a single worse package-management story which I do know of. Edit: I’m talking about platforms with actual package-management which sucks, not platforms with the absence of package-management all together.

I thought NPM was everyone's favourite hated package manager/repository?

Re: If this project is dead, just tell us

#54

Post by rthomas6 »

fiatjaf wrote: post #20

If there are no commits, maybe that means it is finished, stable, reliable? I would like more projects to be without commits and just work. I don't understand why there must always be new commits if everything already works.

This is a good question. I have wondered the same thing about software in general. In this specific case, though, there are 313 open issues and 33 pull requests. So people are finding bugs in the current version (and fixing them).

Re: If this project is dead, just tell us

#56

Post by guggle »

css wrote: post #3

Why would someone choose to use a third party library when the first party solution[0] is more than adequate in the first place? [0] https://docs.python.org/3/library/venv.html

I don't get it either... nor do I understand why venv is considered difficult to use.

"It automatically creates and manages a virtualenv for your projects, as well as adds/removes packages from your Pipfile as you install/uninstall packages."

Well, thanks but automate "python -m venv myvenv" ? Add/remove packages from a "Pipfile" ? Do I have to specify dependencies somwhere else than requirements.txt ? Why ?

There must be some use cases I'm not aware of.

Re: If this project is dead, just tell us

#57

Post by gwd »

rthomas6 wrote: post #31
josteink wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Python packaging in general is such a messy ecosystem Not just messy. It’s probably worst in class. I at least can’t come up with a single worse package-management story which I do know of. Edit: I’m talking about platforms with actual package-management which sucks, not platforms with the absence of package-management all together.

C/C++.

C/C++'s package management story is "defer it to distributions". Personally I much prefer `apt-get install libfoo-dev` to 1) each language inventing its own incompatible system, and 2) each developer self-publishing, so there's little to no safety or accountability when adding a new dependency.

Re: If this project is dead, just tell us

#58

Post by giancarlostoro »

rthomas6 wrote: post #28
valdiorn wrote: post #9

This is all MIT licensed, if people care so much, why has nobody forked this? Why are people talking about jumping ship to a completely different project instead of forking and cutting a new release from there?

It looks like 1.4k people have forked it. The question is, which fork do I use? The problem is not that the source is unable to be updated, the problem is how to you organize peoples' efforts under a trusted maintainer long term? How do I know which forking effort to trust? My understanding is that that's kind of the point of groups like the "Python Packaging Authority". So if they're not going to merge pull requests…

Alternatively, they could add one of those 1.4k people in to help if they seem to have produced working code for the project prior.

Re: If this project is dead, just tell us

#59

Post by Scarblac »

josteink wrote: post #49
Tajnymag wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, C/C++ dependencies are also a hell to reliably setup on different platforms.

But C/C++ is messy because it doesn’t have a language/platform-provided package-management system, while python actually does. So that’s apples to no oranges, I guess. And it still doesn’t leave python looking particularly good.

But the Python mess because initially, it didn't have such a system either. Then a bunch of them were introduced, and some of them became official but there was never one that solved all the problems.

Re: If this project is dead, just tell us

#60

Post by rthomas6 »

blondin wrote: post #39
rthomas6 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Because pipenv is easier to use. 2. Because it's not at all clear that pipenv is a third party library. It's made by the same group that makes pip, so it's confusing that pip would be considered a de-facto standard but not pipenv when it's made by the same group, and under the same project in Github.

pip is not yet in the standard library. as opposed to venv.

Yes. And that is confusing, as pip is a de facto standard IMO.
Post reply on HN