30 years later I still love programming but people given authority opting for cutesy names for critically important terms in the ecosystem should be severely limited in their options.
Flakes, pills, wheels, eggs... Come on, people. I am willing to bet good money that it won't hurt you physically if you just call them "packages".
I get the issues, but using a fresh name that doesn't have pre-conceptions is often the better idea. If I call something a "package" people will have an immediate understanding of what "package" means, but it will be several slightly different understandings and that can cause quite subtle issues with learning and understanding.
To talk about a different context the BEAM VM (Erlang/Elixir) has "processes". These aren't OS processes but pre-emptively scheduled threads of execution, scheduled by a userspace scheduler onto the available processor cores. They're similar to green threads or fibres in other contexts. They're called "processes" in Erlang because Erlang is old enough that the word process hadn't been implicitly co-opted to mean "OS Process", and it means that whenever I talk about Elixir scheduling I have to insert some version of the above explanation otherwise everyone gets the wrong idea. If they'd called them "florbs" instead, there would be no ambiguity. I still probably have to define the term, but I'm defining it against a universal blank canvas.
Or to put it yet another way "All the good metaphors are already taken"
As a guy who made a career out of Elixir (7 years now, though I have mixed and matched that with quite a bit of Rust and some Golang) I could not agree more on the confusing "process" moniker.
My point was that calling packages "cheeses" and "wheels" was a conscious decision on the part of the Python community and apparently nobody stopped to think if it does not introduce friction or make them look unprofessional.
As you pointed out, Erlang's "process" moniker came from a long long time ago and they have a good reason for it. Python though? 10 years ago many of these problems were well-understood already.
Again, my argument is against cutesy quirky names. I get you that the generic "package" name carries some assumptions with it but IMO that's the more worthy battle to fight: to make sure everyone understands the same thing when "package" is mentioned.
(EDIT: All that being said, Erlang could have indeed used a quirky name because what they have doesn't seem to have its own term yet. And it doesn't exist anywhere else I think.)
This "article" is a 10+ year-old website that's been tracking an ecosystem-wide migration from one style of preparing python code for distribution to another, more robust style of preparation.
That's true, but the argument being made was one where "packages" and "packages" was the point of contention. While they're not versions as in numbers, there's plenty of existing work that have similar names, which accomplishes the same goal such as `venv`, `virtualenv`, `python-virtualenv`, `pyenv`, etc. in the Python community.
Which would make the article completely redundant, and that works for me. :D
But let's be serious, they could have just said "99% of the top Python packages upgraded to our new packaging system" which would be much more informative and interesting title and would make me read it in full, as opposed to now when I just facepalmed.
> But let's be serious, they could have just said "99% of the top Python packages upgraded to our new packaging system" which would be much more informative and interesting title
How about "99% of the top Python packages don't require being compiled to install them".
That's one of the biggest wins of wheels. They have pre-compiled binaries for all supported platforms of that package. This typically applies to Python packages that have C dependencies.
So without understanding the reasoning why they are not simply called "python packages" but "wheels", so they have distinct meaning, you chose to go on a tirade about why they are not simply called "packages" instead?
The confidence of some HN commentators never ceases to surprise me
The benefit of wheels is that they’re platform specific so that you don’t need to have a lengthy and dependency ridden compile process, you just install the one that works on your OS and architecture and you’re good. Packages written entirely in Python don’t have this problem since the code is pretty much just copied into dist-packages
You're completely right. The site doesn't even bother to explain what "eggs" are. And while it lists the benefits of wheels, there is no word about the apparent downsides of eggs, or maybe a little comparison table.
Allows for standard features like network of trust, signing, search, smart scanning, transformation into distri specific build flows from a meta format, statistics tracking, CDN, unified package API with dependency resolution and/or SDKs for this.
It would also be much much easier to get sponsoring.
I think JAR (Java Archive) and WAR (Web Archive) make sense.
But wheel? It's a wheel of cheese, because pypi used to be called cheeseshop? I mean sure, but doesn't it feel a bit like that 20-year-old tatoo that you got during your teens that you got mixed feelings about today?
My suggestion: Call them pypacks -- extension: .pyp
"Wheel has an official standard specification. Egg did not.
Wheel is a distribution format, i.e a packaging format. 1 Egg was both a distribution format and a runtime installation format (if left zipped), and was designed to be importable.
Wheels are more akin to crates, so you'd be looking for cargo add -> pip install.
It's been a while since I've first learned python, but pip install came up fairly quickly. At the time, there were no such things as wheels, but when those came, basically nothing changed for me.
Packages are a language-level concept in Python. A package may be a collection of source files on the filesystem, it's still a package, except that doesn't lend itself well to distribution. Moreover, from the language standpoint, the usage of a package (like "import numpy") is the same on all architectures, but the files needed for distribution (native extension module binaries) may differ.
Python is rife with Monty Python references, such as "spam and eggs" in place of "foo and bar", so "egg" was a natural choice.
Wheels are essentially zip files with all the code required to run it contained in one handy little file for all platforms that the package maintainer chooses to build for. Instead of having to download the source of the packages and building on your machines, you have a cache-able neat little file that contains potentially everything you need to use the package. It makes package installations way faster because it skips the build steps and will ship all the binaries required to run the package (ideally). Eggs were this but are not in use anymore in favor of using wheels. Pypi is the package repository for python packages just like npm
Because so much Python code binds to C extensions that you will need to compile for the correct platform. For instance the new version of Pydantic is now backed by Rust. To avoid everyone having to compile the rust code on their platform, you can upload it pre-compiled for linux, windows etc.
Some packages require build-time dependencies not everyone has, like cryptography now requiring Rust. Some packages like SciPy take a very long time to build, and require a Fortran compiler.
pypi is needed because those personal webservers will inevitably go down. why not github? well, it didn’t use to exist before pypi and it microsoft may still pull a good one
eggs and wheels solve binary distribution between other things, so you can install something that requires compilation without having a compiler or the development libraries installed and to avoid bundling files unnecessary during runtime.
a lot of Python packages contain parts written in native code (often C or Rust) for performance reasons.
pip _can_ compile the code at install-time if your PC has the right build tools -- or it can download pre-built binaries for your host in the form of a "wheel".
pypi has a little more metadata than a git repo, and a place to host version-controlled binaries.
You can do even better using GitHub releases: the GET for a releases page with assets (ie use inspector) functions as an index url. So you can have a repo that publishes wheels to a release called eg `latest` that can function as the index for that package/wheel. You can even have multiple repos that publish to a single such wheel repo release repo (using the ncipollo/release-action GHA).
The three that are not wheels are distributed as source tarballs only -- one is AWS Sagemaker that looks like it uses a bunch of native code, one is Apache Spark, and one is futures.
I think the news here is that there are no packages in the top N that are using an alternate packaging system without using wheel as well. (alternates being msi, exe, or egg)
Flakes, pills, wheels, eggs... Come on, people. I am willing to bet good money that it won't hurt you physically if you just call them "packages".