[andrewflnr]

> Zero. The required number of problems needs to be zero - hence my OP

This is unrealistic. You seem to have moved to Go as an alternative, but I know because I've seen the complaints that Go doesn't satisfy that standard either.

[awesome_dude]

I explictly say that NO dependency management is without problems, AND call out Go's attempts in my OP.

You came barrelling because your favorite tool is mentioned, and then, when you realize that it deserves the criticism you try and play that?

Maybe, just maybe, take an objective look at the real problem (dependency management) and recognise that, as stated, nobody has solved it.

[andrewflnr]

I was trying to be sympathetic and acknowledge virtualenv's potential flaws, actually, even though I haven't personally encountered them, but I guess that was a waste of time.

[awesome_dude]

Which part of this is sympathetic?

> This is unrealistic. You seem to have moved to Go as an alternative, but I know because I've seen the complaints that Go doesn't satisfy that standard either.

It's a dig - you completely ignore the valid complaints about Python to instead focus on what you think will provoke me.

The problem (for you) was, from the very start, I bought up the pain points with Go.

[andrewflnr]

> Still, I'm not saying the problems aren't real, ...

> I'm going to blame that on Amazon frankly. That's definitely bizarre.

I'll grant I lost track of the context that you were trying to raise the possibility of some grand encompassing solution to all programming language package management. All I wanted was to reinforce the idea that virtualenv is Often Just Fine in practice, at least if used in sensible ways.

[dxdm]

Only if you let it. I learned something from the response to my question.

Folks, take a step back, both of you. It's just software.