I'll agree that having strong consensus about the map: (Package name, version number) -> (cryptographic hash of package bits) Both is, and ought to be, table

I'll agree that having strong consensus about the map: (Package name, version number) -> (cryptographic hash of package bits) Both is, and ought to be, table stakes for modern language ecosystems. But when it comes to tooling for hosting, fetching, installing, and contributing re: those maps, there's no reason to have each separate language community build an overlapping set of tools that solves those problems. I understand that when you have a new language, building all of that tooling is probably a fun way to flex it, but it's a bigger problem than most language communities really have the interest in to solve properly. So it ends up being a hack job every time. I'd argue that the only reason Java doesn't feel like a hack job re: packaging is that they've (wisely) solved a smaller problem. I can use pypi to install a python package with Java dependencies, but I can't (so far as I know) use maven to install a java library with python dependencies. Better would be to have some lightweight standard for mapping package names to hashes, and then decouple the hosting/trustworthyness indicating/installing/packaging concerns such that language designers don't have to worry so much about those things since they're not really language specific problems.