3 ms·
> specialize in ML research not software engineering. That has nothing to do with Python tooling being bad. A safe assumption is that Python package managers a
by jiggawatts 4y ago
> specialize in ML research not software engineering.
That has nothing to do with Python tooling being bad. A safe assumption is that Python package managers are being developed by developers, who have no excuse.
If a C++ codebase developed by scientists had null pointer exceptions in it, then I could excuse things. But if the C++ compiler itself introduced unforced null pointer errors, then it absolutely deserves criticism.
It shouldn't be possible for a ML researcher to use Conda or whatever package manager in a way that despite using a formally specified "requirements.txt", it won't build a week later because of how loose the specification of module versions is allowed to be.
The Python attitude and more specifically Conda is at fault here, not the ML researching trying to get his job done.
- qaq 4y agoPoetry is fairly reasonable package manager
- alchemist1e9 4y agoOne point you have I absolutely agree with: > Conda is at fault here Conda is so so bad. But trying to explain why to people who have fallen into it’s trap is difficult. People don’t realize the packages are not signed on enough information to reproduce them. The optimizer to find matching versions to make an environment that satisfies your constraints is really bad idea. As an experienced C++ developer unfortunately and fortunately I’ve concluded the most “correct” solution is to use nixpkgs.
- dventimi 4y agoWhat's a good alternative? No, really. Conda has caused me so much pain.
- alchemist1e9 4y agoAs I mentioned I’ve settled on Nix with nixpkgs however it’s got a steep learning curve and really isn’t appropriate for anyone but fairly experienced unix hackers. It’s a problem.