3 ms·
That’s very true but making “static distributions” of Python apps is a fairly hacky/annoying problem with lots of room for subtle breakage. In practice one stat
by formerly_proven 6y ago
That’s very true but making “static distributions” of Python apps is a fairly hacky/annoying problem with lots of room for subtle breakage. In practice one static pkg per major district version seems advisable.
Curiously Linux, despite having an extremely stable user space interface, suffers from a high degree of user space incompatibility. This starts with glibc and its components and ends with graphical toolkits. Go seems to be very successful because it ditches all of that crud and goes for the stable interface instead.
- busterarm 6y agoI'm pretty sure that I was quite blatantly suggesting that Python fails to meet suitability. That doesn't mean we don't use it...because people like it. But it adds complexity and "business risk", whether you like it or not. In some spaces (ML) you're going to have to ship some Python, but what I was saying was that I would rather not. My role the past few years has been some mix of deployment engineering & systems engineering and the conclusion that I quickly came to was that deploying scripting languages like Python/Ruby/etc is the realm of assholes. ...which was a funny lesson because mainly through my career I've worked in smaller scale shops using almost exclusively scripting languages.