131–140 of 171 posts
It's a very similar set of tools. I use pip-compile which allows me to put all of my dependencies into a `requirements.in` file, and then "compile" them to a `requirements.txt` file as a lockfile (so that it is compatible with pip as currently exists).
This looks great, though, I'm excited to check it out!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, Javascript, really? I am guessing you don't actually work with NPM a lot.
One suspects it's you who hasn't distributed or installed many modules on either python or node. So many of the problems that python has, simply don't exist for node, because it finds modules in a bottom-up hierarchical fashion. That allows a single app or module to use modules that in turn use different versions of other modules, and not to worry about what other modules are doing, or how other modules are installed…
> it finds modules in a bottom-up hierarchical fashion. That allows a single app or module to use modules that in turn use different versions of other modules, and not to worry about what other modules are doing
To my understanding, if your app transitively depends on package foo-1.2 in thirty different places [0], there will be thirty copies of foo-1.2 on disk under node_modules/ . Each package reads its very own copy of foo-1.2 when it require()s foo.
On a large app, that adds up to a lot of inodes ("why does it say my filesystem is full? there's only 10G of stuff on my 80G partition!" because it's used up all its inodes, not its bytes.) and a _lot_ of unnecessary I/O. The second through thirtieth copies of foo-1.2 don't come from the kernel's block cache "for free", they come from spinning rust (or if you're lucky, the dwindling number of IOps your SSD can choke out. Do you pay money for provisioned IOps?).
[0] and thirty is a lowball number for some projects, especially given the community's preference to require "leftpad" or whatever instead of writing a couple lines in their own projects
This is great, but sometimes I think that python needs a new package manager from scratch instead of more tools trying to mix and mash a bunch of flawed tools together in a way that's palatable by most of us. Python packaging sucks, the whole lot of it. Maybe I'm just spoiled by rust and elixir, but setuptools, distutils, pip, ez_install, all of it is really subpar. But of course everything uses pypi and pip now, so…
I think python packaging has gotten LOTS better in the last few years. I find it quite pleasurable to use these days. From binary wheels (including on different linux architectures), to things like local caching of packages (taking LOTS of load off the main servers). To the organisation github of pypa [0], to `python -m venv` working. Also lots of work around standardising things in peps, and writing documentation fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would hardly call it a pain, it takes me all of 3 minutes to write a .spec for most python packages and from there it's basically 'tito release'. Sure, if I wanted to package for debian-based distributions it'd take a little more time, but it's worth it to make a quality package that a distribution itself can decide to pick up (packagers love other people doing the work for them, though they won't refuse doing it t…
3 minutes because you know how.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think python packaging has gotten LOTS better in the last few years. I find it quite pleasurable to use these days. From binary wheels (including on different linux architectures), to things like local caching of packages (taking LOTS of load off the main servers). To the organisation github of pypa [0], to `python -m venv` working. Also lots of work around standardising things in peps, and writing documentation fo…
Conda is great software but the Conda/Anaconda ecosystem is a mess.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned pip-tools: https://github.com/nvie/pip-tools It's a very similar set of tools. I use pip-compile which allows me to put all of my dependencies into a `requirements.in` file, and then "compile" them to a `requirements.txt` file as a lockfile (so that it is compatible with pip as currently exists). This looks great, though, I'm excited to check it out!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One suspects it's you who hasn't distributed or installed many modules on either python or node. So many of the problems that python has, simply don't exist for node, because it finds modules in a bottom-up hierarchical fashion. That allows a single app or module to use modules that in turn use different versions of other modules, and not to worry about what other modules are doing, or how other modules are installed…
npm has its own special problems. disclaimer: what I'm talking about in this post is at least six months old, which in node/npm/js world is ancient history. > it finds modules in a bottom-up hierarchical fashion. That allows a single app or module to use modules that in turn use different versions of other modules, and not to worry about what other modules are doing To my understanding, if your app transitively depen…
Haha npm@3 was out June 2015. b^)
I agree that it would have been better, on balance, for previous versions to have created hard links to already-installed modules. Actually that wouldn't be a bad option to have even now, since debugging is often easier when one has a deep directory structure to explore rather than hundreds of random names in the top-level node_modules directory. That is, if I know the problem is in module foo, I can pushd to node_modules/foo, find the problematic submodule again, and repeat until I get all the way to the bottom. [EDIT: it occurs to me that having all these hard links would make e.g. dependency version updates easier, since un-updated dependencies wouldn't have to be recopied, unix-stow-style.]
To me, the more amusing file descriptor problem is caused by the module "chokidar", which when used in naive fashion tries to set up watches on all 360 files and directories created by itself and its own 55 dependencies. At that point it's real easy to run out of file watches altogether. Some of the utilities that call chokidar do so while ignoring node_modules, but many do not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> always supposed to be Python 2 This is not correct. It's a symlink to python2 on systems that rely on calls to python to be python2. On modern systems, python is usually a symlink to python3. This is the case on Arch Linux and I believe other recent distro releases.
Arch is the oddball. I'm not aware of anybody else who's made the switch. Given that they're not mutually compatible except in rare cases, it's a very silly thing to do. You can upgrade GCC with the same name because you know it will handle most of the same input. If you do that with Python you're breaking tons of existing scripts for very close to zero benefit. Why would you do that?
edit: nope, been imagining things. too much time in venvs i guess. need to get more sleep :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One suspects it's you who hasn't distributed or installed many modules on either python or node. So many of the problems that python has, simply don't exist for node, because it finds modules in a bottom-up hierarchical fashion. That allows a single app or module to use modules that in turn use different versions of other modules, and not to worry about what other modules are doing, or how other modules are installed…
npm has its own special problems. disclaimer: what I'm talking about in this post is at least six months old, which in node/npm/js world is ancient history. > it finds modules in a bottom-up hierarchical fashion. That allows a single app or module to use modules that in turn use different versions of other modules, and not to worry about what other modules are doing To my understanding, if your app transitively depen…
Subsequent versions of NPM continue to improve upon this flattening effort.