Python Practical Package Packing 2024
1–10 of 37 posts
Re: Python Practical Package Packing 2024
#2tl;dr use poetry and write decent code
Re: Python Practical Package Packing 2024
#3tl;dr use poetry and write decent code
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.
Re: Python Practical Package Packing 2024
#4Enjoyed the article, I think it mentions some good practices, although it’s missing some topics that may or may not be worth including, depending on your view of what constitutes ‘packaging’ in python.
This bit towards the end certainly came out of left field, but made me laugh:
dawn your peepers on some of these fun adventures in hiring i’ve had recently:
rejected in interviews by a 25 year old senior hiring manager rejected in interviews by a 28-something who had worked at google for 5 years and had a PhD from stanford rejected for arguing, akshually, i made more 10 years ago than what your scale is rated at rejected by some founders who got rich by selling an ios fart app to apple ten years ago rejected via HR/email/auto-reject a couple places at least nobody has ever accused me of not being sufficiently candid.
Re: Python Practical Package Packing 2024
#5While 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.org/en/latest/guides/distributing-p...
Re: Python Practical Package Packing 2024
#6Poetry is so slow, please use uv, for some of my projects, poetry takes 20-30 seconds to update/add new packages while uv completes it in seconds. But I can agree that's better to use a package manager than plain old `requirements.txt` file since you can pin the version you want to use for development or production.
Re: Python Practical Package Packing 2024
#7Re: Python Practical Package Packing 2024
#8Poetry is so slow, please use uv, for some of my projects, poetry takes 20-30 seconds to update/add new packages while uv completes it in seconds. But I can agree that's better to use a package manager than plain old `requirements.txt` file since you can pin the version you want to use for development or production.
Does uv support platform independent lockfiles now?
Re: Python Practical Package Packing 2024
#9Enjoyed the article, I think it mentions some good practices, although it’s missing some topics that may or may not be worth including, depending on your view of what constitutes ‘packaging’ in python. This bit towards the end certainly came out of left field, but made me laugh: dawn your peepers on some of these fun adventures in hiring i’ve had recently: rejected in interviews by a 25 year old senior hiring manager…
you can put lists into hn like so, with two newlines
- item 1
- item 2
Re: Python Practical Package Packing 2024
#10While 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.