[nickjj]

> 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.

[pdimitar]

And I would have never understood that from a cursory look at the article. Learned it just now from you.

[capableweb]

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

[pdimitar]

(EDIT: made myself sound less conflicting.)

It's not such a stretch to want to understand things quicker as an outsider and be annoyed by a seeming gatekeeping via quirky witty terminology.

Not sure why you used such a conflicting tone as an opposition of that -- I think, fairly reasonable -- stance.

[adhesive_wombat]

It's number 3 in "advantages of wheels", which is above the fold on my screen and exactly 50 words into the page, including titles.

[pdimitar]

Fair enough, my point was that the terminology was a put-off. Reads like kids bragging about stuff and not as a technical article.