21–30 of 37 posts
I think it's fine to have high-concept dependency management for the Serious Python Professionals, but what about for people who just want to put a project together and not have their life taken over by figuring out YAML syntax, new-hotness build tools, and dependency graph structures?
For someone that is from the Ruby world and uses rbenv / bundler confortably, what would be the canonical way of using / managing Python in MacOS? There seems to be a sea of alternatives and I see every tutorial mention `pip install` while I don't even have that running in my CLI (only pip3). Do people assume an alias here of I have somehow messed up my environment?
For someone that is from the Ruby world and uses rbenv / bundler confortably, what would be the canonical way of using / managing Python in MacOS? There seems to be a sea of alternatives and I see every tutorial mention `pip install` while I don't even have that running in my CLI (only pip3). Do people assume an alias here of I have somehow messed up my environment?
This situation is also partially why there is so much python tooling around versions, environments and dependencies.
I would love to have a little less dynamic Python, that could be compiled to not huge binaries.
Also, is the author aware of why people use Anaconda? Conda environments can make it significantly easier to link CUDA or Fortran libraries properly, which are quite prevalent in scientific computing. Many people who use such code bases are professional scientists and not professional programmers, so I understand seeing that generally conda-based packages are poorly architected.
It's almost like other people sometimes do things differently because they have different needs or have thought of things you haven't, not just because they're too stupid or uneducated to know better.
For someone that is from the Ruby world and uses rbenv / bundler confortably, what would be the canonical way of using / managing Python in MacOS? There seems to be a sea of alternatives and I see every tutorial mention `pip install` while I don't even have that running in my CLI (only pip3). Do people assume an alias here of I have somehow messed up my environment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uv rules and poetry drools; I like the idea of poetry but once you see how fast uv can build your environment whether or not the files are in cache I think you could never go back to poetry.
Is the UX comperable? Might try this
Rye on the other hand seems to be extremely poetry-like while being written in rust for speed: https://rye.astral.sh/
But personally, I can't justify switching my employer to experimental python dependency management over something as inconsequential as taking a minute to install dependencies so I'm sticking to poetry until Rye has some years of development behind it.
While the author enumerates the things they think you should do, I think it was very light on the _why_ you would want this setup. I think the argument of "you are doing it the old way" have been really ineffective at convincing people to do anything different, particularly around python tooling. The official docs recommend doing many of the things the author cautions against or calls bad. https://packaging.python.or…
Yeah I gotta agree here, I'm not sure I've seen someone so opinionated with python. I tend to try to use things built into python or official recs until I hit an actual problem that needs to be solved.
I realize the Venn of packaging has copious disjoint functionality slices.
Too, what one does for a bit of one-off, non-typed cloud manipulation is different than for a full-on, re-usable library.
But the fabulous disaster that is the python packaging landscape was tiresome a decade ago.
Maybe the PSF can sponsor a kickstarter so that peanut gallery mouths like mine can contribute funds where our skills are tapering off.