|
|
|
|
|
|
by bloblaw
1261 days ago
|
|
|
> Take some ownership of your problems, even if the ecosystem provides them -- they are chosen, and can be managed. Huh? This has a strong "No, it's the children who are wrong" vibe. But to be more fair to your point, I think this is a dismissal of the OP concern's. A troubled ecosystem should be concerning to the Python community as a whole because it threatens future adoption if not addressed. User's don't want a troubled ecosystem and will find languages that avoid these problems...and Go, Nim, and to smaller extent Zig, Rust, D are strong alternatives for the different workloads currently provided by Python tooling. Python has a good moat with both ML and mind-share of developers...but at one time Perl had a similar moat... |
|
|
> User's don't want a troubled ecosystem and will find languages that avoid these problems
It's true, I'm very late to Python myself -- for the exact same reason. The distribution part of the ecosystem is a nightmare.
People want utilities, but they learn more than they ever cared to because of dependencies.
I'm only learning how to manage it now because work demands it.
Prior, all of my needs had fortunately been met by my Linux distribution of choice -- the Python part was abstracted away, for the most part.
Developers of these utilities could save some (shared) effort by offering package specs/finding a maintainer, but I understand why it's not common.
(I may even build/maintain it for you, to sweeten the pot)
I guess the fuel of this thing is, 'misery loves company' -- I'm dealing with it, and I can't just whine about it.
The "I don't use it and it still affects me part" was the bait -- they do use it