3 ms·

I absolutely agree, but this sort of tragedy is a bit unavoidable. What language would you choose to have that ecosystem instead? The next thing right now is pr

by lvass 5y ago

I absolutely agree, but this sort of tragedy is a bit unavoidable. What language would you choose to have that ecosystem instead? The next thing right now is probably JS which is even worse. Every language has plenty of issues. Python's worst IMO is how C extensions and other stuff are tied to an interpreter definitely unsuited for it's popularity. Parallelism shouldn't really creep in considering how most code is written. The only language I can think of being better is Lisp if somehow the lisp curse wasn't a thing.

Zababa 5y ago
JS has at least good package management and distribution compared to Python.
- lvass 5y ago
  Kind of. Python definitely has more legacy cruft, but also has an npm equivalent PEP 582 with a working example, pdm. I don't see how JS is better unless you include web browsers as distribution. It's mostly people thinking bare `pip install` is a reasonable way to add various applications to your system that complain about python packaging. I'm not saying Python packaging doesn't suck, it definitely does. But so does JS and the mess that the npm ecosystem is makes working with it it much more painful.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    > Python definitely has more legacy cruft, but also has an npm equivalent PEP 582 with a working example, pdm That's part of the problem. Python has lots of things that cover lots of things, but nothing does everything. > It's mostly people thinking bare `pip install` is a reasonable way to add various applications to your system that complain about python packaging. It is reasonable in JS, and I think it should be. Having to worry about virtual environments is a pain, and having to learn new tools to avoid that is a pain too. > I'm not saying Python packaging doesn't suck, it definitely does. But so does JS and the mess that the npm ecosystem is makes working with it it much more painful. I don't think that's a good point. The JS ecosystem adapted quickly to TypeScript, while Python is lagging behind. Most of the new JS features are reasonable, and the backwards compatibility is top-notch. Meanwhile, Python is spending brain power on pattern matching and :=. JS is missing something like Django, but on the other hand Python has no React equivalent. All of that without mentioning speed or the fact that JS has multiple implementations that works very well with almost all the ecosystem.
    - lvass 5y ago
      >It is reasonable in JS, and I think it should be It's not. Even if npm install -g happened to work for you, it's insane to rely on it. These language package managers have a purpose in isolated environments but are incapable of building reliable, modifiable and updatable systems on their own. It's a good thing pip fails quickly so people don't attempt this.
      - Zababa 5y ago
        Why is it "insane" to rely on it? It works well on widely used distributions. The only thing missing from node is a version manager like nvm.

by lvass 5y ago

Zababa 5y ago

JS has at least good package management and distribution compared to Python.

lvass 5y ago
Kind of. Python definitely has more legacy cruft, but also has an npm equivalent PEP 582 with a working example, pdm. I don't see how JS is better unless you include web browsers as distribution. It's mostly people thinking bare `pip install` is a reasonable way to add various applications to your system that complain about python packaging. I'm not saying Python packaging doesn't suck, it definitely does. But so does JS and the mess that the npm ecosystem is makes working with it it much more painful.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > Python definitely has more legacy cruft, but also has an npm equivalent PEP 582 with a working example, pdm That's part of the problem. Python has lots of things that cover lots of things, but nothing does everything. > It's mostly people thinking bare `pip install` is a reasonable way to add various applications to your system that complain about python packaging. It is reasonable in JS, and I think it should be. Having to worry about virtual environments is a pain, and having to learn new tools to avoid that is a pain too. > I'm not saying Python packaging doesn't suck, it definitely does. But so does JS and the mess that the npm ecosystem is makes working with it it much more painful. I don't think that's a good point. The JS ecosystem adapted quickly to TypeScript, while Python is lagging behind. Most of the new JS features are reasonable, and the backwards compatibility is top-notch. Meanwhile, Python is spending brain power on pattern matching and :=. JS is missing something like Django, but on the other hand Python has no React equivalent. All of that without mentioning speed or the fact that JS has multiple implementations that works very well with almost all the ecosystem.
  - lvass 5y ago
    >It is reasonable in JS, and I think it should be It's not. Even if npm install -g happened to work for you, it's insane to rely on it. These language package managers have a purpose in isolated environments but are incapable of building reliable, modifiable and updatable systems on their own. It's a good thing pip fails quickly so people don't attempt this.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      Why is it "insane" to rely on it? It works well on widely used distributions. The only thing missing from node is a version manager like nvm.