3 ms·

> I don't want yet another python package manager on my system. Use virtualenv. Having python specific packaging system makes sense with virtual environments.

by plesiv 10y ago

> I don't want yet another python package manager on my system. Use virtualenv. Having python specific packaging system makes sense with virtual environments. Tracking dependencies with requirements.txt and installing them with portable package manager makes build of a project portable. There are limitations to the current state of pip, but the idea behind it is sound.

chaosphere2112 10y ago
VirtualEnv and conda both accomplish the same goal (though conda has a fairly clever pip alternative included), but for vastly different userbases. I am a developer, I've used VirtualEnv for every web app I've worked on, but now I use conda for handling my environments/package management because our software was ported over to it. The reasons we did that were: a) Every one of our users knows how to use conda (we build a scientific visualization app) b) it got rid of a few thousand lines of CMake c) Installation time is now maybe five minutes instead of 1+ hours. d) We don't lose a week trying to get our stuff installed on a supercomputer Our users are all scientists. They don't care about "best practices", they just want their stuff to work, and to be able to do their job. The level of technical skill varies wildly, but now a tool exists and they actually use it to segregate versions of their packages into separate environments. This is a freaking miracle; trying to figure out what's broken on a person in india's computer when they did a crazy from-source install in an environment we barely support was just about impossible. Now we say "do conda list and send us the output; also, you can get a working environment by installing whatever previous version worked for you" is a huge change (yes, build systems and package managers have been fixing that problem for decades, but this was the first one compelling enough to actually get scientists on board). conda has been fantastic for us, and our users love it. They don't give a crap about what the python community has deemed the "right" way to do something.

by plesiv 10y ago

chaosphere2112 10y ago

VirtualEnv and conda both accomplish the same goal (though conda has a fairly clever pip alternative included), but for vastly different userbases. I am a developer, I've used VirtualEnv for every web app I've worked on, but now I use conda for handling my environments/package management because our software was ported over to it. The reasons we did that were: a) Every one of our users knows how to use conda (we build a scientific visualization app) b) it got rid of a few thousand lines of CMake c) Installation time is now maybe five minutes instead of 1+ hours. d) We don't lose a week trying to get our stuff installed on a supercomputer Our users are all scientists. They don't care about "best practices", they just want their stuff to work, and to be able to do their job. The level of technical skill varies wildly, but now a tool exists and they actually use it to segregate versions of their packages into separate environments. This is a freaking miracle; trying to figure out what's broken on a person in india's computer when they did a crazy from-source install in an environment we barely support was just about impossible. Now we say "do conda list and send us the output; also, you can get a working environment by installing whatever previous version worked for you" is a huge change (yes, build systems and package managers have been fixing that problem for decades, but this was the first one compelling enough to actually get scientists on board). conda has been fantastic for us, and our users love it. They don't give a crap about what the python community has deemed the "right" way to do something.