[colemannerd]

I would really encourage you to think more on this. Good enough for you... is not really the goal. We want standard tools that help with packages and virtual environments that can scale to an organization of 2 python devs... all the way up to hundreds or thousands of devs. Otherwise, it fragments the ecosystem and encourages bugs and difficult documentation that prevents the language from continuing to evolve effectively.

[eigenman]

It would be great if that tool existed, but it doesn’t seem to right now. I can appreciate the instinct to improve packaging, but from an occasional Python developer’s perspective things are getting worse. I published a few packages before the pandemic that had compiled extensions. I tried to do the same at my new job and got so lost in the new tools, I eventually just gave up.

One of Python’s great strengths is the belief there should be one, obvious right way to things. This lack of unity in the packing environment is ruining my zen.

[zokier]

From ecosystem point of view I think all language specific package managers are crap. Instead of fragmenting the wider ecosystem on language boundaries, we should be looking more for language independent solutions. Nix is cool, as are buck2/bazel.

[TheCleric]

Normally I’d agree with you, but they’re talking about the built in tooling. That isn’t going away anytime soon. If it’s good enough for their purposes they should continue using it, especially with no clear consensus on a “better way”.

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

Nobody is saying that they shouldn’t continue using it?

[TheCleric]

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but that was the impression I was getting from that comment. I’m happy if I’m incorrect though.