[lmm]

> The success of python is due to not needing a broader ecosystem for A LOT of things.

I honestly think that was a coincidence. Perl and Ruby had other disadvantages, Python won despite having bad package management and a bloated standard library, not because of it.

[procaryote]

The bloated standard library is the only reason I kept using python in spite of the packaging nightmare. I can do most things with no dependencies, or with one dependency I need over and over like matplotlib

If python had been lean and needed packages to do anything useful, while still having a packaging nightmare, it would have been unusable

[lmm]

Well, sure, but equally I think there would have been a lot more effort to fix the packaging nightmare if it had been more urgent.

[ModernMech]

There was a massive effort though, the proliferation of several different package managers is evidence of that.

[lmm]

Maybe. A lot of them felt like one-person projects that not many people cared about. I think that on the contrary, part of the reason so many different package managers could coexist with no clear winner emerging was that the problem wasn't very serious for a lot of the community.

[LtWorf]

The bloated standard library is the reason why you can send around a single .py file to others and they can execute it instantly.

Most of the python users are not able nor aware of venv, uv, pip and all of that.

[rjzzleep]

It's because Ruby captured the web market and Python everything else, and I get everything is more timeless than a single segment.

[vkazanov]

Ruby was competing on the web market and lost to many others, including Python. In part, because python had a much broader ecosystem, and php had wide adoption through wordpress and others, and javascript was expanding from browsers.