3 ms·

> This while we have elephants in the room such as packaging. There is a part of me that wonders, at this point, if basically every new addition to the languag

> This while we have elephants in the room such as packaging. There is a part of me that wonders, at this point, if basically every new addition to the language itself is secretly just a medium for procrastinating on figuring out what to do about setup.py. I'm not as down on this PEP as some other seem to be, mind. It's just that, when I think about my actual pain points with python, this language addition starts to look like a very, very fancy bike shed.

properdine 6y ago
Have you taken a look at [PEP 517](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/) ? It enables other tools to replace setup.py (e.g., poetry is pretty nice for making easy-to-package-and-publish pure python libraries).
mixmastamyk 6y ago
The people that work on packaging don't overlap much with those that work on the core language. The latter don't seem to care about it much, as far as I can tell.
1337shadow 6y ago
I sort of wonder why I see so much users complaining about package management in Python, meanwhile I'm having a fantastic journey since 2008 with it, with over 50 published open source packages. "Sort of" because I'm suspecting that the users in question just do not want to integrate upstream changes continuously, so, they expect the package manager to help them procrastinating on dependency updates, which has proven to lead to disasters such as npm install, and I'm kind of worried that this is the direction they have been taking. But I admit I use setupmeta for auto definition of the version, and it just makes setup.py even better, but that's basically the only thing I like to add to setup.py, because it simplifies package publishing scripts. I haven't found any feature in pip to verify the gpg signatures that it allows us to upload packages with (python setup.py sdist upload --sign). As for pattern matching is not specific to Python, it's available in many other languages and is a joy to use in OCaml, I see no reason why Python would not have pattern matching.

properdine 6y ago

Have you taken a look at [PEP 517](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/) ? It enables other tools to replace setup.py (e.g., poetry is pretty nice for making easy-to-package-and-publish pure python libraries).

mixmastamyk 6y ago

The people that work on packaging don't overlap much with those that work on the core language. The latter don't seem to care about it much, as far as I can tell.

1337shadow 6y ago

I sort of wonder why I see so much users complaining about package management in Python, meanwhile I'm having a fantastic journey since 2008 with it, with over 50 published open source packages. "Sort of" because I'm suspecting that the users in question just do not want to integrate upstream changes continuously, so, they expect the package manager to help them procrastinating on dependency updates, which has proven to lead to disasters such as npm install, and I'm kind of worried that this is the direction they have been taking. But I admit I use setupmeta for auto definition of the version, and it just makes setup.py even better, but that's basically the only thing I like to add to setup.py, because it simplifies package publishing scripts. I haven't found any feature in pip to verify the gpg signatures that it allows us to upload packages with (python setup.py sdist upload --sign). As for pattern matching is not specific to Python, it's available in many other languages and is a joy to use in OCaml, I see no reason why Python would not have pattern matching.