[pxc]

> How is [Python] very different from NodeJS?

Unlike Node, Python is essentially older than modern package management. When Python developers first decided to tackle distributing their code, `apt-get` did not yet exist.

Early approaches which stuck around way too long let any package do more or less anything at install time, and didn't bother with static metadata (can't figure out what your deps are except by attempting an install!). Subsequent solutions have struggled to build consensus in an already vast and mature ecosystem. Backwards compatibility means compatibility with bad conventions.

[hot_gril]

That makes sense. Backwards compatibility can be a large burden. I'm still sad that they haven't managed to make a new thing that just works. NodeJS is repurposing a language and runtime originally meant for hacky web scripting, but it ended up ok in the end.

In general, if a community doesn't agree on how to fix a problem, someone else will provide a solution at a higher layer. Now it's common to install a whole Docker image to run some Python code instead of a few Python deps.

[xorcist]

Not really. CPAN was already a thing when Python itself was released, long before there was any Python packages to share.

[pxc]

What did cpan.pm actually look like in 1993? Did packages ('distributions') have static metadata? Could the installer perform recursive dependency resolution? Was the resolver complete?

My impression is that none of that resembled contemporary CPAN, and isn't really what I have in mind with the admittedly ambiguous phrase 'modern package management'.

But I'd love to hear more! The history of package management is very interesting to me. Tales of ancient but sophisticated package management systems are very welcome. :)