Does anyone else think this reflects badly on Python? The fact that the author has to use a bunch of different tools to manage Python versions/projects is intimidating. I don't say this out of negativity for the sake of negativity. Earlier today, I was trying to resurrect an old Python project that was using pipenv. "pipenv install" gave me an error about accepting 1 argument, but 3 were provided. Then I switched to…
The big gap is management of the full dependency tree. With yarn I can get a package.lock which pretty well ensures I'll have the same exact version of everything, with no unexpected changes, every time I run yarn install. I get the same thing in the Rust world with Cargo. In Python it's a mess. Some packages specify their deps in setup.py; some in a requirements file, which may or may not be read in by their setup.p…
One is pipenv [0], which works similar to yarn & co. It uses Pipfile/Pipfile.lock to define and lock dependencies. Pipenv has a major flaw: It can't be used to publish packages on pypi.org (you still need twine & setup.py for that). It's also known for being slow and somewhat buggy. Despite all that pipenv is an "official" tool maintained by the "Python Packaging Authority".
The other one is poetry [1], which works exactly like yarn & co. It uses "pyproject.toml" to specify dependencies and "poetry.lock" to lock them. Poetry does most of the things "right", but it's still an underdog compared to pipenv.
Both tools have not yet fully matured, thus there are a lot of complaints.