6 ms·
There are two reasons I am not in favor of python. First and foremost its packaging sucks. I have wasted far too much time wrangling pythons packaging systems.
by sigmonsays 9y ago
There are two reasons I am not in favor of python. First and foremost its packaging sucks.
I have wasted far too much time wrangling pythons packaging systems. Incompatibilities between pip, setuputils, distutils, virtualenv, eggs, C modules, and wheels I have literally given up. I love and use python but I no longer package it and deploy it for others to consume. Try to package a protobuf3/grpc system these days into a .deb, its a nightmare. Even the grpcio devs use docker containers to build packages because python has such a nightmare of a system.
I'll leave the second reason out for the sake of context
- miketery 9y agoDon't leave is hanging. What's the second reason? Thanks.
- xapata 9y agoDo you think that's easier, harder, or about the same as Make, Maven, Rake, etc.?
- halostatue 9y agoRuby has one packaging format that is essentially unchanged since 2004: RubyGems. There have been improvements in making it easier to convert a gem to a native package since then (even though I think that’s a fool’s errand), but the fundamental packaging system hasn’t changed (although indexing and serving has).
- xapata 9y agoI'm not a Rubyist, but in my experience there are few Ruby packages with non-Ruby dependencies. That makes packaging much easier.
- Walkman 9y agoNo it's not. Putting your head in a sand for the last 5 years sucks.
- dom0 9y agoPlease don't be so dishonest to claim that "because pip" fixed Python packaging.
- rasjani 9y agoBad example IMHO as grpc building is painful even with 0 involvement of Python. That is, If you have any prerequirements either for build environment or 3rd party libraries. And while I did get things done in reasonable time, while doing research I noticed quite a lot of people where echoing about same thing.